MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'd like to take the
opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to welcome the students and their two
teachers, Mr. Frank Simpson and Eric Schieman from the
Britannia Secondary School in Vancouver.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, today is a
very historic day in the history of British Columbia. During
these current three days in the capital city we have with us a
large number of B.C. Association of Non Status Indians who
today presented a brief to the cabinet. It's a history-making
day, a precedent-setting day, and I want the House to welcome
to the capital city, to the legislative precincts and the
gallery representatives of the B.C. Association of Non Status
Indians.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in
the galleries today two visitors from the City of Revelstoke,
Mr. and Mrs. Earl Young of that city. I would ask the House to
join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE VETERINARY MEDICAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of
Bill 3 intituled An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical
Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 3 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders
of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE AGRICULTURAL LAND
DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of
Bill 5 intituled An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land
Development Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 5 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders
of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of
Bill 7 intituled An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 7 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders
of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE OLEOMARGARINE ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of
Bill 8 intituled An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 8 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders
of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.

Bill 19 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders
of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.

Oral questions.

LABOUR SHORTAGE
FOR OKANAGAN APPLE HARVEST

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to
the Minister of Agriculture, the Canada Manpower Farm Labour
Bulletin for the Okanagan-Kootenay Area, dated September 18,
indicates:

"The MacIntosh apple harvest is fully underway in the Okanagan Valley. There is a shortage of pickers at
present in Kelowna, Rutland, Winfield, Oyama, and Vernon.
Shortages are expected to continue and become more serious over
the next two weeks."

By telephone this morning I learned that the shortage of
harvesters or pickers is fairly extensive; more serious than in
recent years, was the information I received.

While this is a federal Manpower report, could the Minister
inform the House, Mr. Speaker, if any steps are being taken to
assist in the harvest?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I appreciate
volunteers from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. There
have been discussions between my department and people in the
Interior about this problem. It was anticipated to some extent
in that the crop this year has generally been a little earlier
and larger than usual. So at the moment all I can report is
that we are in constant touch with them and doing what we can
to improve the situation, but beyond that, nothing to
report.

HIRING OF WOMEN IN
LIQUOR STORES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is
addressed to the Attorney General and I'd like to ask him if
the Liquor Control Board has a policy which prohibits the
hiring of women in its retail liquor stores?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, there's
no policy in the retail liquor stores that prohibits the hiring
of females. However…(Laughter)…in the retail liquor
stores, the staff are very interchangeable as to the work they
do; somebody who would be doing the cashier's work one day is
unloading trucks another day. In the past that has meant that
it has not been particularly suitable work because heavy work
has been involved.

Since I have been Minister, I have taken care to look into the matter and I
would ask the House to note that in the administrative offices of the Liquor
Control Board the proportion of women who are hired there and doing very useful
work has increased quite dramatically. It almost amounts to a preference in
that end of the business. But in terms of lifting of heavy weights, I haven't
come to the conclusion that that is proper work for the girls of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Could you tell us if you have any women
employed in the retail stores in the Liquor Control Board, and
do you plan to employ any?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'd have to put that on the order
paper. I can't answer….

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sure you know right now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, not of all the stores in the
province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are there any?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't answer that right now. Put it on
the order paper.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question on the same thing. I'd like to ask the
Attorney General if there are any plans by the Liquor Control
Board to cut down the size of the cases so that women will have
less weight to lift?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary
question. Does the Liquor Control Board have any plans to hire
women in its retail liquor outlets? Because I've had a number
of requests from women who have been turned down flatly in
their request for jobs with the Liquor Control Board. I'd like
to know whether the board has any plans to hire women, not in
its administrative offices but in the retail outlets.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon.
Member would draw those cases to my attention. I'll be glad to
look into them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I trust that the
most distinguished tennis player in the Legislature will be
sitting this afternoon watching television so he can see Bobby
Riggs defeat Billie Jean King.

adjourn before that. In any event he will then see that
women are quite capable I'm sure of at least playing tennis, if
not lifting heavy weights.

COPPER SMELTER

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Mines whether or not the statement by the chief executive
officer of Cominco that the prospects of getting a copper
smelter in the province are receding, because of delays caused
by both levels of government, has led him to revise in any way
his statements regarding government intentions in this
regard?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum
Resources): In regard to that question, Cominco never got in
touch with me before they made that statement. And the
statement hasn't changed our opinion with regard to the bounty,
which is not in force today. And so if Cominco doesn't want to
have any participation on an equity basis, well then they'll
have to get their money someplace else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm confused by this because the chief
executive officer of Cominco declared it was caused by the
delay in the discussions they had had. But the question comes
to mind, is it necessary for the head man of Cominco to ask
permission of the Minister before making statements, or making
a speech to his service club?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well I think he made an incomplete
statement, but his statement was really aimed at the federal
government, because it's the federal government that has been
dilly-dallying with this question over a long period of
time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker I quite realize the
Minister's belief in the incompetence of NDP opposition MP's in
Ottawa; I share it. But we happen to be here in the province
discussing also the provincial subsidy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member not engage
in debate. If you have a question, please ask it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well if the reference is being made to
the federal government's subsidy, I'd like to talk about the
provincial government's subsidy. This happens to be, Mr.
Speaker, the provincial Legislature. Is there any change in the
subsidy programme for proper smelters in the province or in
your plans?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, not at this stage at all.

We wiped out the bounty Act last time and there is no
provision for subsidy. We asked for participation.

PROPOSED CUT-BACK ON
NATURAL GAS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, might I ask the
Attorney General whether or not in the last two days he's had
any further communication with Ottawa regarding his approach to
Ottawa on the proposed 10 per cent cut-back on West Coast
Transmission natural gas?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon.
Member, I received a telegram this morning from the Hon. Donald
Macdonald, the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources, in
which he said he had received our own telegram, the
representations of the Province of British Columbia, that he
was referring the matter at once for urgent consideration to
the National Energy Board, and that he would speak to me about
the matter within a day or two.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary question? Is the
Attorney General or the cabinet considering delegating anyone
from the cabinet to specifically remain in close liaison, or to
go to Ottawa on behalf of the province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has
been heard by the Premier. If it becomes advisable and a very
important matter to send somebody to Ottawa for discussions
there, I'm sure the Premier will issue that kind of
direction.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. What
is the reason for the delay in releasing to the Members of this
House the B.C. Energy Board Report, which the Premier referred
to earlier this week and which, I understand, has been in the
government's hands for approximately a week?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, a little less than a week, Mr.
Speaker, considerably less than a week I think. I'm a little
bit out of touch with the actual days. But we want copies for
all Members of the Legislature, and for the media. It will be
released tomorrow morning.

PROPOSED FORMULATION OF A NEW
IMMIGRATION LAW FOR CANADA

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to direct, Mr. Speaker, a question to
the Premier. In response to the Minister of Manpower and
Immigration's (Hon. Mr. Andras) request that the provinces
participate in formulating a new immigration law for Canada,
does he intend to

set up a special committee of the House? If so will Members
of the opposition parties have the opportunity to participate
on this committee? How does he plan to participate in….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged
receipt of such a request from the federal minister. However
there is no government policy as to proceed. I would be fearful
of allowing the opposition the right to define immigration as
it might drastically reduce the membership of the government
side of the House. But, if we do it on an impartial basis,
perhaps it would affect the opposition just as well. We have
not formulated any policy; we have received a request and
acknowledged the request.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier give
consideration to having an impartial committee — if he forms a
committee? Would it be an impartial committee of the House so
as to have some input? I think it's very important, British
Columbia being the province that it is with a lot of
immigration, that certainly the Province of British Columbia
have a great deal of input into this new law that's going to be
formulated by the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that any
matter of question period must deal with the parliamentary
responsibility of this government and not another government.
If there is some action on the part of this government it's a
different matter. But if there isn't, the question is really
not appropriate.

PROPOSED NEW STUMPAGE RATES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pose a question
to the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. Could
he inform us whether or not new stumpage arrangements have been
agreed to, and whether these were discussed with the council of
Forest Industries. Finally, and most important, when will
Members of this House, and the public be aware of the
discussions that took place and the new thoughts in stumpage
rates and stumpage arrangements?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):
I'm pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have carried on discussions with the
industry since mid-summer, with respect to improving what was in fact a fairly
irrational system — I think that's conceded by both sides, both government
and industry. There have been some modifications as a result of the discussions.
I think it's been an excellent learning process for some of those involved.
And once all modifications are completed by our professional people, they'll
be made available to the Members of this House and others.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister. Is there no way for Members of this Legislature to be
at least as aware as members of the Council of Forest
Industries as to what is taking place, prior to the final
package being placed in this Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter is still being dealt with
internally by our professional staff and the Minister's office.
As soon as resolution is achieved the House will be the first
to be informed.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A question Mr. Speaker,
on the same matter of stumpage rates. The indication that we
have received from the forest industry is that, if the plan
goes ahead as was proposed, the average increase in stumpage
rates will in many cases be better than 50 per cent over what
they had previously paid, taking everything in consideration.
Have you done any research into the matter with regard to the
type of impact this would have if you proceed with the proposed
new rate of stumpage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that any system that this
government brings in will benefit the people of British
Columbia.

MR. SMITH: Oh, what an answer!

CRUISE SHIPS AND TRANS-OCEANIC
LINERS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct
my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could the
Minister advise the House what specific plans his department
and this government have to go into the cruise ship and
trans-oceanic liner business in British Columbia?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Minister treats this question as a
joke, but his employee, the director of transit in his department, is quoted
in a letter to the City Council of Vancouver that this government has plans
for long distance passenger, rail and bus traffic, fast bus services to suburban
communities, and trans-oceanic and cruise ships. Now, all we want to know is
what type of cruise ship business this government plans to get into. Will the
committees now be travelling on some of these cruise ships?

Does the provincial government intend to use provincial
money for harbour facilities which are traditionally financed
by the federal government? What are their plans? Obviously your
director of transit feels that you're going into this business?
We have a right to know what those plans are.

MR. SPEAKER: One question at a time, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm just trying to speed things up in
the House, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think the Member should realize that
they haven't got the whole control of the Titanic at the
moment.

PROBLEM OF HIGHWAY 97

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hate to detract from
the thought of ocean cruises for the cabinet, but I would like
to address a constituency question to the Hon. Minister of
Highways and ask if, in his meeting with officials of the City
of Kelowna and other interested officials in the last week, he
came to a conclusion and commitment for the problem of Highway
97 in the north part of the Okanagan Valley; and if, in so
doing, he is prepared to meet the commitment made by the Social
Credit government that no decision would be made until there
had been a public hearing — particularly in the area of
Winfield, Oyama, Okanagan Centre — to present the alternates
that are viable and realistic, and to have some input from the
people in that area?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've put your question.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Well, there have been
no plans finalized for any expansion or widening of Highway 97
through the Okanagan Valley. I did meet yesterday with the
mayors of Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton. I went there to listen
to them and to see what they had to offer in the way of ideas.
The one area that became obvious is that there hasn't been a
great many things done there which should have been done in the
past, so we're trying to rectify that problem by working with
them.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, it's too late.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate that….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member send him a
note?

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE(continued)

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start by welcoming all Members of all parties to
the refurbished chamber. I would particularly like to welcome
the newly-elected Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). He
enters at rather an onerous time — I guess this puts one more
contestant into the leadership race for the Social Credit Party
of this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We're working on that too. As far as
opening the windows — unfortunately, while the workmen in
charge of refurbishing did complete the assembly as we see it,
the air circulation is not complete and they tell me
that….

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Hot air.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: There has been up until now, Scotty. But
we hope before too long that that will be complete. The sooner
they can turn these Klieg lights off, I guess the sooner the
assembly will cool down.

I would like to start, Mr. Speaker, by giving credit to the
members of the staff of the Department of Public Works, those
mechanics, tradesmen and carpenters who actually worked on the
restoration of the chamber, who actually worked on the
restoration of the first three suites on the third floor.
Sometimes we hear it said that you can't hire a good workman in
Canada. Now, a good deal of the work that has been done to
date, because of the time element, because the fact that we
didn't have time to let tenders, was done by in-House people
and it is my pleasure to be able to tell you that I find we
have some first-class cabinet finishers, first-class and
competent tradesmen of all types.

I'd also like to state this: apart from the tradesmen, or
along with the tradesmen, I was very fortunate to inherit a
very conscientious and competent department; this goes right
from my secretary, Mrs. Boyd, to her staff, to the planning and
design people and to the maintenance people.

This summer I had the opportunity to travel and visit with
some of our northern communities. There I met our northern
superintendent and his foreman. I found these people were very
interested in the work they were doing and they were concerned
in doing a very proper job. Knowing this and finding this, I
can

appreciate the frustration of the workmen, working men and
women, who have had to look after the maintenance of this
building and the buildings in this precinct area over the
years. I can appreciate the frustrations they must have had. To
know that this building needed repairs, and the people who
control the purse strings would not loosen those strings and
release moneys to do work as it should be done, and they had to
patch here and patch there, I'm sure it would be very, very
frustrating.

A year ago, before we took office, I heard rumours that
there were truckloads of paper being hauled out of the
Minister's office and hauled away from these buildings, and
that the paper shredders were going night and day. Of course,
until you have some evidence of this, you have to just treat
that sort of a story as rumour. But when we started to look
into some of the problems in restoring and renovating this
building, I found, not in my office because there were no
papers in my office — my predecessor had considered those
papers as his personal papers and had them removed — but I did
find in staff reports a report with regard to this building. A
report that states that this building was in a very, very
serious state of disrepair.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound
(Mr. Williams) asks the date of the report. Well, I can tell
you, the report is over seven years old.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey
(Mr. McGeer) asks what was done. I'll just give you a brief
run-down on this. As I said at the outset, this document had
been removed from my office — the original — but I did find I
was given a copy. It states on page 2 that the remaining items
recorded are self-explanatory; it goes into great detail on
work that should be done. But the magnitude of the work
required, in my opinion….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member withdraw
that statement?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The statement you made, sir. You know your
statement. Will you withdraw it?

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw the words "Mr. Magoo."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Would you proceed? If you're going
to start indulging in insults in this House, and you intended
it as an insult, then you'll have to realize the House will
have to censure Members who do.

MR. CHABOT: That's fine, but you stop insulting the Members
too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't insult the Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on page 2 of the report it
states, "The magnitude of the work is such that it is not
capable of being implemented over a reasonable period of time
by using the limited funds currently available for us for the
maintenance of this building." It goes on to page 3, and I'm
just quoting in part, but I will table this document for anyone
who wishes to see. The final paragraph on page 3, "There is
little doubt that unless major work is immediately implemented,
each year that passes will make the task of restoration and
preservation of the character of this structure more difficult
to achieve and will add great cost to the work."

The first page is a covering letter from the then Deputy
Minister to the then Minister, and it states in the first
paragraph, "In summary, these reports indicate that close to $1
million will be needed to be expended to restore the whole
exterior to a good standard."

Now that was over seven years ago, Mr. Speaker. Since that
time, the building has further deteriorated, costs have gone
up; so I would dare say that if we can do it for twice that
amount today, we are doing well — and this is merely on the
exterior of the building.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Was that report
before the centennial celebrations?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This was in 1966, yes, before the
centennial celebrations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): What's the date of the
letter?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The letter is dated September 19, 1966,
seven years ago yesterday. The report was made prior to this,
so it's a good, clear…better than seven years ago.

Now I have noted in the media many comments made by
different people that the building has been maintained over the
years, that it has been maintained in first-class shape. I
notice in the press that the former Minister also chose to
become involved.

I have brought with me several samples of the dry-rot and
the state of deterioration of the roof, on outside and inside,
and I will table this too with the

Speaker. One Member asked that we table evidence; we are
always willing to table evidence.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I don't know; I have no way of
knowing.

I believe many of you, at least some of you, will recall
going back prior to 1972, that the Members of the opposition
groups at that time — I believe there were just the two, the
New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party…but I know there
were 17 Members in the New Democratic Party caucus room, and we
had one room and one table, and two telephones for 17
Members.

When the Second Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr.
Williams) was elected and came in and saw this mess, he said
there was no way that he would get involved with that. He got
himself a table and he sat out in the hall. This was one of the
first protests that I recall.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Did he mean the room or the
party? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Good point. I notice he is still with the
party but he has left that room. (Laughter.)

He is also one of the leading voices in demanding that a
proper restoration job be done not just in this chamber and in
this building but in the entire precinct area. The Second
Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of
Lands, Forests and Water Resources, is a planner by profession.
I think we are very, very fortunate to have a man of that
capacity sitting with us on the government side of the
House.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He sits
occasionally.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: One of the pictures that I have — and I
will pass this book about for all to see — shows the way the
previous administration allowed offices to be built out into
the halls. Of course, you could crowd more people in, but in
crowding in more people, in case of fire, they had just that
much less of a chance to get out; so we were creating real
hazards.

In further checking I found that the fire marshal said that
all persons on the third floor of this building were up against
a real hazard. Because of that we are building two stone and
concrete staircases from the third floor down so these people
can have proper exits.

Speaking of fire escapes, one day the Minister of Labour
(Hon. Mr. King) said, "I have something to show you."

When the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan became Minister of Labour, he
found one of his offices was over in one of those little wooden shingle
buildings at the side of the Queen's Printer. This is where the former
Minister was. One of the discoveries the new Minister made was their
fire escape…a two-storey building…and what was it?…A great piece
of two-inch rope fastened to a great eye-bolt on the wall.

They tell me that whenever they hired any new stenos, the
standing joke was that they'd take them over and say, "Now
girls, the first thing you have to learn is how to slide down
this rope in case of fire." (Laughter.)

That was standard procedure under the old way, by the old
Minister in the old days, and they did nothing about it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, the Hon. Member says that that's the
way he used to avoid delegations — to slide down the rope.
(Laughter.) Apparently the old building and the old rope fire
escape have had a humorous ending; but it could have been very,
very serious.

In referring to halls: you see coats, desks…very
cluttered up. Clerk-stenos are crowded into the vaults…no
windows, no air circulation, and a very, very poor environment for working in. Yes, I'll pass the book about.

We found, up in the attic, that great masses of paint and
plaster were dropping from the ceiling of the rotunda, so we
went up and investigated and we found great plastic tents
hanging there.

At about the time we made this discovery, someone dropped me
a little cartoon in the mail. It shows a picture of quite a
large church, quite a good attendance, and the minister is in
the pulpit giving them a report on their appeal for a new roof.
He said, "You know, we didn't get enough money for the new roof,
but we did get enough money for six new buckets to catch the
drips."

That's precisely the way the old government used to operate.
When the roof sprung a leak they stretched some plastic and
bought some more pails and put the pails here and there.
(Laughter.) They were operating like poor church mice.

Now, concerning stone and concrete walls — and we have had
to, as you know, let a contract for over $100,000 to dig a
trench around the building, a drainage trench, and place proper
drainage tile — but in the walls in the basement, the walls in
the tunnel from here to the Douglas Building, were constantly
wet. At one point, the maintenance people had put little
galvanized troughs into the wall, so it would catch a little
water here and it would drip to there, and there would be
another trough and it would drip to here — and finally end up
in the bucket. (Laughter.)

So they had a full-time bucket brigade here. (Laughter.)
Rather than spending a dollar in attempting to maintain and
restore this fine old building, they had a bucket brigade doing
that. So, Mr. Speaker, you make no wonder that the group that
was so incompetent to cope with dry-rot, sooner or later were
bound to take the bite. (Laughter.)

I will pass this along without any further elaboration.

For those who say there was no dry-rot, what is this?
(Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You shouldn't do that; you make me lose
track of my speech. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will just give you a rundown on some of
the renovations that we feel should be made. When Francis
Rattenbury designed this building, starting, I believe, in
1893, he had great visions. He was one of the world's top
architects. It was planned in the early Victorian design, not
quite as opulent as the later Victorian design.

But I believe the early parliamentarians, the early leaders
of this province, are certainly to be commended in having
chosen an architect of that stature and then daring to build a
building of this type and nature, because it is a major
building of interest in North America. When I tell you that
since the new government…. Maybe the restoration has
something to do with it, but in the summer months this year we
had over 120,000 visitors go through. They're not just Victoria
people; they're not just B.C. or Canadian people. They are from
all parts of the world. That's more than twice as many visitors
as we have had in the two previous summers. Their total for the
two previous summers was 102,000. This year, it was 120,000. So
there is interest, and I think it is due in part to this very
fine building that Mr. Rattenbury designed.

Now, the first item I have listed is the matter of the
restoration of the library. It was designed to have stacks
going through the full floor, stacks to store books, and it had
never been allowed to function in that fashion. The stacks have
been bought and they are now pretty well installed. I believe
the tasks and work of the librarians will be easier. Their
service has always been good, but I hope their work will be
easier.

Rattenbury designed two elevators, one for each side of the
main building. A second elevator will be installed.

On this floor, the second floor, Mr. Rattenbury planned
provision for the legislators — that is, for both government
and opposition — also room for the press and the
Sergeant-at-Arms and so on, those working with the Legislature.
The plans on this are not complete. I see there are differences
of opinion, Mr. Speaker, on just what should be done with the Members'
rooms, and it may be wise to have a committee set up so that we
can get all points of view, the press, the Members in the
opposition of the various parties, the government members, and
so on. I'm certainly open to that consideration if the Members
would like to have some input, because we haven't done anything
really other than refurbishing the chamber on this main
floor.

Now, on the third floor, there will be a total of eight
suites; three that are now complete, another three that should
be complete by mid-December, and two more complete, I hope, for
when the spring session takes place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What is the cost per suite?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I can't give you that. The Member asks the
cost per suite. As yet that hasn't been broken down, and I
think you can appreciate that with the type of restoration that
we have had to do, it wouldn't be fair to charge a $100,000
ditch against any one suite. It is part of the whole
building.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On the third floor, we will have a total
of eight suites.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We are planning on moving the executive
chamber over into the west wing to give more room for private
Members on the main floor.

I have made mention of the two stairwells that had been
recommended years ago by the fire marshal. We are going ahead
with this.

Now, I would say it will probably take, in all, three years
to complete this project, and I should mention that in the
original design Mr. Rattenbury planned an extension to the west
of us where the Motor Vehicle building is, and one to the east
where the Queen's Printer building is.

MR. SPEAKER: It's east of this building. Try again.
(Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I didn't realize we had changed the
setting of the sun since we took office. (Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You thought you were still on the
other side of the House. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Oh, I see. Right on.

Oh, yes. I should mention that on the third floor we have
worked in a committee room between the

three Ministers' suites on the west side, and another
committee room between the three Ministers' suites on the east
side. So there will be two more committee rooms on the third
floor.

Now, as we were researching this, and working with the
planning and design people, I recalled having made a trip to
Europe a few years ago with my wife, and one of the very
interesting places that we visited was the House of Commons and
the precinct of Westminster. At that time, we were told how
this very historic and now hallowed site was started over 900
years ago. It was started by Edward the Confessor, but he
didn't live to make too much use of it because, as you will
recall, William the Conqueror came along, and he was crowned
there. But that precinct has been in use for over 900 years.
After the original Westminster Hall had been in operation for
300 years, they had to put a new roof on it. They did very well
to get 300 years out of their first roof; we haven't done quite
so well.

Those buildings, the Abbey and all, are the site of
thousands and thousands of people visiting there from all over
the world. I believe, just as we respect and you respect this
building today, by doing a proper job of restoring it and
refurbishing it, it is going to last not just for the term of
this government or another government, but it will be here for
all time.

As you know, the House of Commons was bombed during World
War II, and when it came to restoring the House of Commons
following the war, Winston Churchill saw to it that some of the
stonework and the masonry was taken from the rubble and the
ruins and built right into the new building. He said that he
wanted this as a monument to some of the ordeals that
Westminster has passed through.

Now, we are often inclined to take historic buildings such
as this, and such fine architectural masterpieces, we take them
for granted. We have torn down a lot of fine old buildings in
B.C. They certainly don't go back any 900 years, but they go
back 100 years. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some people seem more
intent in pulling down buildings than preserving them, so I am
very delighted that we have the craftsmen and the materials,
and I am delighted that we have a Premier who takes pride in
our history and is prepared to pay for preserving it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think it is only right that while Mr.
Rattenbury, the architect, didn't live to see the building
completed….

HON. MR. BARRETT: He was done in.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. We should give credit to Premier John
Herbert, who was Premier in B.C. in 1895, and to Premier Turner, and again to
the Conservative Premier. The early Premiers didn't have parties, so I can't
attach a party label to them. But between 1903 and 1915 we had a Conservative
premier, Sir Richard McBride, and it was under his aegis that the extension,
the second extension, the 1915 extension south of here, was completed.

Now, whether we can complete this in this term of office or
when, we don't know, but they say about three years time is
required to complete it. We've been less than a year at it
now.

Now, buildings are buildings, they are material things. But
I believe there is a great deal more to life, and a great deal
more to democracy, than just building buildings or effigies. I
believe that when the new government brought in the matter of a
question period, I think this was a step forward for democracy
in this province. I believe that this added greater dignity and
greater prestige to this assembly and to the institution of
democracy throughout the world.

I think that the fact that we have a Hansard means the
constituents, whether they live in the east in Columbia, or
Atlin in the north, or in the South Okanagan, they can read
what goes on. I think this was another step that the new
government did that contributed to democracy, to greater
democracy in this province.

When the whole or part of this assembly is televised, I hope
this will interest more people in what is going on. Because so
long as the students in school, so long as the constituents in
the home riding are interested in what is going on in this
Legislature, I have no fear for democracy. But when people
become callous, apathetic and indifferent, then we are in real
danger. So I ask your support in seeing that the restoration
and refurbishing of this building be completed as best it
can.

Now the cost could be great, as I said in tabling the
7-year-old report. They said then that it would cost $1 million
to attempt to restore the exterior. That figure could well be
$2 million today, because of the increased costs of materials
and work, and also because greater damage has been done when
that work was not done earlier.

Now that, along with making new suites and restoring the
whole building, could well amount to $5 million. I don't know.
We haven't those figures; the contracts haven't all been let.
But we feel that it is a worthwhile building, that democracy is
worthwhile elevating and perpetuating and we're dead serious
about that.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to take my place in this throne speech debate today, as
the representative for the great riding of Cariboo.

congratulating the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr.
Bennett) and wish him well, as well as a long stay here. I
would also, Mr. Speaker, like to say to you that I thank you
very much for my new seat on the front benches. It has taken me
a long time to get here and I certainly appreciate your
thoughtfulness. I would like to make a comment that I don't
think I would ever have made if we had remained the government.
(Laughter.)

The only observation I have to make about that is the fact
that I don't think I'm going to have a very long stay on the
front bench, because there are a few things going on within our
party that will probably send me back to the backbench for the
spring session. However, time will only tell. (Laughter.)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): No way. You're going to stay
there.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to stand once
again in these gloriously refurbished premises. The Minister of
Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is probably one of the most
interesting and devastating personalities on the other side of
the House. Little did we know last September that he would so
quickly become a member of the jet set.

I understand that he has more time logged on the government
aircraft than all the rest of the cabinet put together, Mr.
Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: "Flying Bill."

MR. FRASER: However, we understand that it is very important
for him to travel across the province giving a critical
examination to the foundations of all government buildings; and
when he isn't working in Victoria we appreciate the diligent
way and the critical eye with which he has looked upon these
buildings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How come you lost the bull throwing
contest?

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that, Mr. Premier.

We appreciate as well today the expensive set of pictures
which he presented to this House, Mr. Speaker. Who else on the
other side of the House would willingly spend $2,500 on
photographic time and effort to give us the benefit of knowing
that these buildings are in danger of falling down. The
Minister of Public Works, of course, is an expert on buildings.
We all know that he purchased the Glenshiel Hotel but, for some
unknown reason, he couldn't give us the price that was paid for
it.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If you sit down I'll tell you right
now.

MR. FRASER: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have examined these
buildings as well, especially the offices which we occupy as
the opposition. We have noted the hours and hours of jackhammer
efforts that went into drilling through the massive reinforced
concrete floors, and we know that while it was extremely noisy
that these buildings can be described as "solid British
Columbia."

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we measured these
reinforced floors and found them to be 12 inches-plus of
well-seasoned concrete. And while we're at it, the Members of
the official opposition want the Minister opposite to know that
if he is looking into our offices with an idea of covering
those reinforced concrete floors with any fancy, high-priced
plush rugs, we don't want them.

So, Mr. Minister, cancel any orders that you might have
made, through you, Mr. Speaker.

We have noted as well the interesting little holes that have
been gouged out of the walls of the crumbling structure. We
have measured the plaster and find that it is two inches thick
in places. We have examined the solid brick interior wall and
we know that it is faced with very substantial quarried
stone.

However, Mr. Speaker, we did not want the photographic
effort of the Minister of Public Works to be the sole
presentation to this House this afternoon, and so we went out
and got $2.50 worth of pictures to show some of the excavations
that have been made through the walls of this sturdy structure.
Having had the benefit of the opposite Minister's photographic
display, I'm sure the Members of this House and the public
would like to see as well some of these other pictures, which I
have prepared for you.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that if, in fact, there was a
danger of these buildings crumbling or collapsing, as the
imaginative Minister opposite would have us believe, they would
indeed be crumbling upon the fancy drapes, the high-priced
rugs, the bed-sized desks and the stuffed chairs and
chesterfields in the Ministers' offices. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was sent forth to
do a camouflage job of pictures in living colour in order to
cover up the biggest cost-plus fiasco since the over-run in the
Ottawa cultural centre. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the economy of the Cariboo riding has been very
good this year, but there is uncertainty about the future. The
lumber industry has been in full production, but have had their
problems all this year getting adequate transportation for
their products.

The cattle industry is happy with the prices they are
receiving, but it appears there will be a shortage of feed for
the coming winter caused by a late cold spring and a very dry
summer.

I am quite surprised, Mr. Speaker, when I look across at the
government benches. Members of the

executive council now take up over half the seats provided
on the government side; the cabinet has been increased by a net
of four. It certainly makes one wonder how long it will be
before cabinet posts are found for all NDP MLAs. They are now
more than half. I know the backbench would like that. Thank
you, fellows.

I would like, at this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to
congratulate all the cabinet ministers. I wish them well in
their positions, but I also say that I hope they don't hold
them too long.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Only till the next
election.

MR. FRASER: The NDP has been the government for a year now,
and I feel it is time for an appraisal of some of the various
departments. The Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.
Barrett) has had a busy year. When the Premier was Leader of
the Opposition, he was opposed to creating surpluses. However,
for the past year he has continued to add new taxes to our
citizens and I'm sure will create in this fiscal year the
largest surplus that any finance Minister has ever
collected.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and some Members of his cabinet
attended the Williams Lake Stampede in the great riding of
Cariboo at the end of June. We have heard something about this
but we have only heard part of the story.

I'm sure that while they were there they enjoyed themselves,
because the Williams Lake Stampede is the largest one put on in
the province and it provides entertainment for all sections of
the community.

One of the major events, Mr. Speaker, is called the bull
throwing contest. The event is arranged for visiting and local
dignitaries. They must be people who hold elective office such
as MLAs, MPs, aldermen and mayors. The entrants to this contest
must drink a bottle of beer as fast as possible and then throw
a piece of dried cow manure as far as they can throw it. The
participant who throws the farthest is crowned the Champion
Bull Thrower of the World.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The whole world! (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: The whole world. Mr. Speaker, this year there
were about 30 participants, including the Premier of British
Columbia, and I am happy to advise you that the Premier won the
contest fairly and squarely. He threw the bull much farther
than any other participant and won the contest by many feet
over his nearest competitors. Mr. Speaker, the Premier was
presented with the trophy which acknowledged him as the
Champion Bull Thrower of all this world.

I want to advise you, Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, of this achievement because I feel this title is
most appropriate.

I don't think that all observations of this government's
performance for the past year should be directed to the Premier
as there are 17 other Cabinet Ministers and I intend to discuss
some of their activities as well.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has had a
difficult year and continues to have one. This is caused by the
strong dissatisfaction with Bill 42 passed at the last session.
Bill 42 has caused great concern in this province and continues
to do so. It has successfully doubled the cost of land
available for housing to our citizens and it is almost
impossible to acquire any reasonably-priced land in this
province for housing for our ordinary citizens who need it the
most.

Bill 42 has angered all our farmers as well as our
locally-elected municipal and regional officials. Bill 42 has
taken away most of the zoning powers of our locally-elected
officials and given them to a government-appointed bureaucracy
in Victoria known as the Land Commission. The Attorney
General's department has had a year of non-performance and I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General has seen fit to
go and play tennis because I would have liked him to be here
and maybe he would have had a few answers to what I have to
say.

As I said, he has had a year of non-performance. This I
cannot understand because earlier in the year this Minister had
two departments. He had the Attorney General's department and
the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.
However he has been relieved of the Department of Industrial
Development, Trade and Commerce and now only has the Department
of the Attorney General.

By being relieved of this portfolio you would think that the
performance of the Attorney General would improve, but, Mr.
Speaker, it has only deteriorated. The Attorney General has so
many advisers and executive assistants to help him do nothing
that I don't think that he has even met all of them yet, let
alone assign them duties which will improve law enforcement in
this province.

He has appointed a liquor commission to advise him on all
liquor matters so he won't have to bother about this branch of
government operations. The RCMP tell him how they are going to
police the province rather than the Attorney General telling
them. As an example, Mr. Speaker, when a municipality enters
into a contract with the RCMP, the RCMP tell the municipality
involved how many men they require and what that will cost. It
is an ultimatum to the municipality. "You either sign on our
terms and conditions or else."

when this is going on? He is nowhere to be found; that is
the situation at the moment. His department does not assist in
any way and in my opinion the Attorney General's department
should assist the municipalities when they are negotiating
their contracts with the RCMP.

I don't say this in any derogatory manner about the RCMP. I
think they are a fine police force but they send their little
boys out from Ottawa and they deal with the mayors and councils
of this province on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and because
the Attorney General is the chief law officer I think he should
be in on these negotiations and possibly get them to water down
some of their demands that they are making on the
municipalities of this province.

The Attorney General is very biased when it comes to
salaries of lay and legal judges, Mr. Speaker. He makes sure
the legally-trained judges receive a fair and just salary but
he pays no attention to the inadequate salaries of the lay
judges. Consequently many lay judges are resigning because of
an inadequate salary.

Why should a full-time lay judge work for $700 or $800 a
month and a legally-trained judge get $2,000 or more a month? I
have no objection to the salaries legally-trained judges
receive but I object strongly, Mr. Speaker, to the salary scale
that the lay judges must work for.

This province will never be able to have all legally-trained
judges because of the many isolated areas in the province. So
by discriminating against the lay judges it seems to be the
opinion that just because the provincial judge has a legal
training this gives him three times the brainpower of a lay
judge, which the present salary schedule seems to indicate.

I don't think that while we have them that we should
discriminate against them on a ratio of three to one in a
salary ratio.

I would also like to know where the Attorney General was
when we had the illegal walkout of the ferry workers. That was
one illegal act and I didn't hear anything from the Attorney
General on that one. Why did he not come to the rescue of his
colleague, the Minister of Commercial Transport and
Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who said at the time that
the ferry workers had a gun to his head?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the way I interpret law and order that's
another illegal act. So we have two illegal acts. Certainly, he
needed help — and I refer to the Minister of Commercial
Transport and Communications. But nothing was heard from the
Attorney General and the Minister of Commercial Transport and
Communications settled this issue by signing a blank
cheque.

Neighbourhood pubs have been requested by many areas of this province, Mr.
Speaker. In fact local plebiscites have already been taken and passed by the
public but no legislation exists for these pubs. Where is it? Again we wait
while the Attorney General considers what to do. Bring in the legislation and
make it possible for those pubs if the citizens of the local area approve of
it by plebiscite.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, that isn't the understanding that the
people have.

Mr. Speaker, we have a new Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.
Lea) and I am very happy to see him in his seat in the House
today. He hasn't spent too much time here but I congratulate
you, Mr. Minister.

I realize that this Minister has only been Minister for four
months. However, since he has taken on the Department of
Highways he has almost stopped the vital and necessary task of
upgrading our highways to accommodate the ever-increasing
traffic. Even funds for day-to-day maintenance are in short
supply. I wonder if the Department of Highways will have any
funds for snow ploughing this winter? I would suggest to the
Minister of Highways, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he request
additional funds from the Minister of Finance, who has a large
surplus, and get on with the enormous job of upgrading and
maintaining our vital highway system.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)
is in his seat, which I am very happy about. I have a few words
for him. The Minister of Human Resources has new, beautiful
offices and is something like the Attorney General. He has so
many advisers that I am sure he has not met them all yet.

With these beautiful offices and large staff, at the public
expense, he has done nothing to relieve the cost of welfare to
municipalities. It was an election promise of the New
Democratic Party that they would relieve cities of this burden.
Nothing has been done and the financial load continues to
increase to all our citizens that live in the municipalities. I
again request that the heavy load of welfare costs be reduced
to our municipalities and that they not be replaced, Mr.
Minister, by some other charge that will add to municipal
taxpayers.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is not
in his chair, so I haven't much to say to him other than to say
through you, Mr. Speaker — here he is — that his greatest
achievement since taking office has been the forced
amalgamations of Kamloops and Kelowna. Time will only tell now
how this will work out, but I think we saw the tip of the
iceberg in the by-election in South Okanagan on September 7.
How it will work out in the future….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's next?

MR. FRASER: But I understand that many promises have been
made to these new enlarged areas by the government, and so far
none of these promises has been fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP promised in last year's election that
they would have a new deal for municipalities. The only
evidence of a new deal so far is the fact that because of
inadequate grants to the municipalities by this government this
year, every municipal taxpayer in British Columbia was faced
with a 10 to 20 per cent increase in taxes on their property.
This is certainly a great new deal for all the taxpayers. I am
sure the citizens did not realize that the new deal promised by
the NDP would cost them so much.

The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, made reference to amendments
to the Municipal Act. I look forward to these amendments and
hope that they will provide some relief for the hard-pressed
municipalities of this province.

I have a few comments to make about Operation SAM, and I am
pleased to see that our new Minister of Recreation and
Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is in his seat, whose
department this programme comes under. This programme was
instituted in 1971 by the prior administration and certainly
was well accepted by all the citizens of British Columbia at
that time.

The purpose of Operation SAM was to assemble and crush old
car bodies throughout this province and deliver them to a
crushing plant in Richmond for shredding and further use of
this metal. The Regional District of Cariboo did an excellent
job of organizing several sites for Operation SAM to operate in
the Cariboo. The crushing unit operated in the Cariboo in
November 1971 and stockpiled the crushed car bodies on several
private properties. Mr. Speaker, this is the middle of
September, 1973 and some of these crushed bodies are still
stockpiled in the Cariboo. I am advised by the Minister of
Recreation and Conservation that these crushed car bodies are
now being picked up by the provincial government, which means
that these crushed car bodies have been sitting in several
stockpiles in the Cariboo for a little more than 22 months.

I blame the past and present administration, Mr. Speaker,
for this utter neglect on their part of the bargain with the
owners of these car bodies. Several excuses have been given by
the present administration for this lengthy storage period, but
it really has been complete neglect by the government in not
seeing that these car bodies were picked up sooner.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation should write a letter of apology
to all property owners who stored these car bodies at no charge to the provincial
government. The space these car bodies occupied was very valuable to these owners,
and I'm sure that if apology is not given that it will be a long time before
the government will get the permission of these people to operate and store
car bodies again. This is a shame because, when Operation SAM began, everyone
was in favour of it. Now, because of neglect by the prior and present government
in not keeping their part of the bargain, very few car bodies will be crushed
in the future in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just one closing comment on SAM. It
incensed me to no end that the local people organized these
things, the government crushing unit comes in, and they leave
them stockpiled for 22 months. I appreciate that the new
Minister has written me and advised me these car bodies are
being picked up. Well, I drove down through the Cariboo a week
ago Monday to come to the session and the car bodies in some
cases were still stockpiled. I'm going to double-check. I don't
say the Minister gave me wrong information, but I have a
message for him, Mr. Speaker; if there are still car bodies
stockpiled in the Cariboo when I go home this weekend, I'm
going to get a freight line to haul them down here and dump
them in the Minister's office. And I realize he's got a big
enough office.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You'd get the carpets
dirty.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the greatest concern that the
citizens of the Cariboo have at the present time is the lack of
a forest policy by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water
Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). No one can find out what his
forest policy is, or that government's, because the Minister
will not answer his correspondence; nor will he talk to the
industry; nor will he spend any time in the Legislature, Mr.
Speaker. This is causing widespread concern, and consequently
there has been no real investment in the forest industry since
this government assumed office over a year ago. The industry is
standing still waiting for announcements by the Minister about
future forest policy.

Several attempts at new forest policy have been made, such
as a new stumpage formula and the relocation of future timber
rights to government-owned-and-operated forest operations. The
quality of life in the Cariboo, Mr. Speaker, depends on the
land base which provides cattle, agriculture and, most
important of all, forest crops on a sustained-yield basis.

The Cariboo has many small, independent work groups which
produce for the forest industry. These are people of initiative
and enterprise who invest their money in equipment, operate it,
and benefit to the full from their own enterprise.

The new proposed stumpage policy is stupidity in the
extreme, except that it has a few dirty tricks tossed in as
well. One sawmill that presently is operating pays $360,000 per
year at the old stumpage rates: under the new proposed stumpage
rates, his rate of stumpage will become $810,000 a year, Mr.
Speaker. This is an increase of $450,000 per year. This mill
has never earned this amount of money in

The jobs of hundreds of Cariboo people are at stake. It is
stupid to charge such high prices for timber so as to force
sawmills out of business and to face reduced manufacturing, and
thereby export jobs to the United States and elsewhere where
our lumber is sold.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to discuss arrogant schemes
and dirty tricks that are being deliberately applied to shrink
the economy of the Cariboo. While I will give examples specific
to the Cariboo, I think every MLA in this House should examine
whether or not the established employment base in his riding,
or her riding, is going to be reduced by the zeal to favour
government ventures in another area of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: Examine also whether or not private business is
going to be discriminated against and weakened as an employer
so public business can look good. The Premier said the record
of his government will rest upon the financial success of
Canadian Cellulose. The former loser must show a profit at any
cost.

This statement is the mandate for the Minister of Forests
(Hon. Mr. Williams), a most ambitious man, to use every trick
in the book to favour Canadian Cellulose. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
it is now apparent that he plans to make the northwest corner
of B.C. his personal fiefdom in which the Minister will be
dictator. When he emerges from it, he will have usurped the job
of the Premier of British Columbia. While I like the Premier, I
do not discuss affairs involving the Minister of Forests to
take sides in a power struggle within the New Democratic Party,
but because I do not want the economic welfare of the Cariboo
destroyed, Mr. Speaker.

What I have to say about the Cariboo applies equally to
Prince George and the Fort George riding. As everyone knows,
Fort George is represented by the NDP and, therefore, the MLA
does not understand or care about the economic welfare of his
riding.

Canadian Cellulose cannot show a profit using the same
low-quality, high-cost timber assigned to the former owners.
That timber costs more than $50 per unit, Mr. Speaker. The
Minister of Forests must stampede to pre-empt sawmill chips
from the central Interior, 600 miles away, at $10 per unit.

A dramatic plan of spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public money
to build railways is underway in the deal. The British Columbia Railroad equipment
will go on CN lines in order to subsidize movement of forest raw materials to
Prince Rupert from the central Interior, a distance of 500 or 600 miles.

Obscured by the dramatics, Mr. Speaker, are subtle plans
designed to achieve the following: manipulate boundaries of
forest management units to pre-empt timber supplied for the
fiefdom which should be allocated to supporting existing
industry in points in the Cariboo such as Williams Lake,
Quesnel and, of course, Prince George in the Fort George riding — and other communities as well; direct pulp chips to Prince
Rupert which, by any measure of economic logic, properly
belongs in the Cariboo or Prince George economy; utilize the
new stumpage policy as a device to minimize stumpage and
thereby increase the profit of favoured operators in the
Minister's fiefdom.

The Narcosli sustained-yield unit lies west of Quesnel in a
land form and drainage system which flows to Quesnel. The
ranchers and loggers who work in this area use public roads
that exist and forest access roads that originate in Quesnel.
This timber is pine timber, needed to supply several mills in
Quesnel that are specifically designed, Mr. Speaker, to utilize
the size and quality of wood that exists in this forest.

I might say that I am proud of the Cariboo operators. They
originated the total close-utilization policy and the cutting
of small timber, and showed the rest of this province how it
could be done on an economic basis.

The fourth is clearly a major part of the forest land base
which must be managed to sustain the employment base of the
Cariboo. There is a plan by the Minister of Lands, Forests and
Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) to pre-empt the wood
supplied for the government operation of Plateau Mills at
Vanderhoof. To give effect to it, steps have already been taken
involving arbitrary use of contrived statistics to alter
allegations of Cariboo operators. Administrative rules have
been ensured which prevent Cariboo operators with financial
capability to develop roads systems westwards from applying for
or bidding on the timber they need for future requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I want the government-owned Plateau Sawmill at
Vanderhoof, which already has more timber quota than it can
fairly use if it operates on the same standard of utilization
required of others, to stay out of the Cariboo. I want an open
and above-table examination of the annual allowable-cut needs
of existing forest industry in the Cariboo.

Last month a clause appeared in the timber sales in the
Cariboo that said two things; (a) operators must supply a
prescribed number of railroad ties to the British Columbia
Railroad; (b) unless agreement with their railroad is
immediately completed, that timber sale would not be
operative.

Most of the Cariboo sawmills are not tie mills; they are
designed to manufacture specialty items which are sold under
contract to a wide range of customers all over the world. How
can Cariboo

sawmills maintain employment of their crews if the British
Columbia Railroad has given arbitrary right to pre-empt their
timber supply?

Why should not the government put their requirements out to
tender, so these mills with the capacity can bid for this
business? Mr. Speaker, the CPR has no trouble obtaining ties in
this manner. A few days after the clause was introduced, when
the fair market value for ties was $130 per 1,000 feet, the
buyer for the British Columbia Railroad was offering $70 for
the same 1,000 feet. Take it or forfeit your timber sales, it
is as simple as that.

I must ask…. Oh! Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome back the
Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). I must ask the Attorney
General if the taxage in this case could be described as
extortionate.

Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I want to discuss the new
stumpage policy that is proposed. The Premier and all MLAs have
received detailed comments from the Truck Loggers Association
and other agencies qualified to demonstrate the impact. There
is no doubt that, if implemented, this policy will shatter
employment in the logging and sawmill sector and, soon after,
the economy of British Columbia.

As has been pointed out, implementation will be the greatest
mistake in the economic history of British Columbia. I
recommend that all MLAs study most carefully the letter to the
Premier by the president of the Truck Loggers Association. Mr.
Viv Williams is the president of the Truck Loggers Association;
his operation is at Spuzzum in the Fraser Canyon.

Note well the point that the scheme is designed to limit
profits of not just the logging and sawmill industry, but every
trucking, road-building and small business that services the
forest industry. Is it not true that minimizing profits for the
purpose of maximizing stumpage leads eventually and quickly to
cost control, then wage control in the industry? Mr. Speaker,
will you agree with me that assessments imposed on industry,
and taxation as it affects profits of people in industry,
should be a function of this Legislature, not the secret
preserve of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources
(Hon. Mr. Williams)?

MR. CHABOT: And where is he now?

MR. FRASER: In one year in office this government has set up
a situation even more appalling than Watergate. The stage is
set for friends of this government to put their fingers in the
public cookie jar, and the busy bees in the Minister's office
are in a position to cream off the honey.

If you think the setup will not and cannot be used to favour and discriminate,
please note that the areas where the government-owned Canadian Cellulose operates
have been assigned the most favoured applications of stumpage, and Prince George
has the most severe. Canadian Cellulose is already being allowed higher profit
and lower stumpage than private industry in the central Interior.

One can speculate as to why, under the close utilization
plan, certain pulp mills do not pay any stumpage, and are put
in the position to get raw material cheaply by riding on the
backs of the loggers and saw millers. Could it be that now that
the government is in the pulp business, and because the Premier
has said his government record rides on the profits made by
Columbia Cellulose, the government pulp mills will also pay no
stumpage and will also ride on the back of the people who work
in the logging and sawmill industry?

I say to the Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, stop this
hanky-panky. Get control of the Department of Forestry, make a
full scale public inquiry into the administrative procedures
and get judicial, unbiased policy guidelines established.
Eliminate the massive conflicts of interest that are abroad in
the land…a Minister with his own principality. A district
forester responsible for assessing stumpage, and thereby
limiting profits of private business, is on the board of
directors of Plateau Mills Limited and, in that position, is
obliged to see that profits of that company are increased.

Put the activities of Canadian Cellulose out in the open for
scrutiny in this assembly. It is public business, Mr. Speaker.
Have you so soon forgotten your campaign promises in respect to
public business? Do not implement the new stumpage policy; it
will destroy the country, but the country cannot afford to wait
until your political career is destroyed by such a policy.

When the government announced the purchase of Columbia
Cellulose, they stated that this was the key to create I
believe it was 20,000 new jobs in the northwest of British
Columbia. This is all very fine, but they did not say that it
will be at the expense of already-established and efficient
forestry operations in other parts of British Columbia.

While I am making observations about the Lands, Forests and
Water Resources department, I would like to deal briefly with
the Lands department of that Ministry. For many years the
provincial government has leased Crown lots in British Columbia
for summer homes. There are many Crown subdivisions in the
riding of Cariboo. These Crown lots are leased on a term basis
to the citizens, but the lease fees are open to revision every
five years.

If the price of land appreciates, which has been the case
for some time because of inflation, the lease fees are revised,
giving consideration to the increased values. The prior
administration gave instructions to the Lands department that
if these values had more than doubled in the five-year period,
the Lands

department was not — was not, I repeat — to increase the
lease fees more than double.

When the present government took office a year ago, they
instructed the Lands department to assess these lease fees on
the actual market values. Consequently, from last year to this
year, many lease fees have increased four and five times, Mr.
Speaker. I am amazed this government would allow this to happen
because it is causing undue hardship to the ordinary citizens
of British Columbia.

I mentioned earlier that many of these Crown lots are
located in the Cariboo and leased by citizens with moderate
incomes who come from Vancouver, New Westminister, Surrey,
Langley, Burnaby, Victoria, Nanaimo, and so on — in other
words, citizens from the lower mainland. The increase in the
lease fees put into effect by this government is making it
almost impossible for citizens of moderate incomes to maintain
these summer homes. In effect, the new fee structure for these
lots means that only the wealthy will be able to afford them.
It is a great surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, to find that this
little people's government has a lease policy that can only be
taken advantage of by the wealthier citizens of our province. I
say to the government that they should be ashamed of this
action and that they should take steps immediately to reduce
these lease fees so that the ordinary citizen can afford a
summer cottage in some part of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make about the
standing committees' work. I have been a member of the
Municipal Matters committee for some time and I feel the work
of this committee has been very worthwhile. I cannot discuss
the report that will be presented shortly to the Legislature,
but I feel that committees operating between sessions are very
helpful for all the Members and, last but not least, a greater
opportunity for citizens of this province to present their
various views to the various committees.

My only wish is that when these committees report to the
Legislature, this Legislature takes heed of their reports and
does something about them. If this happens, the standing
committees, in my opinion, are a great success.

As a Member of the Legislature representing the large rural
riding of Cariboo in the central Interior of this province, Mr.
Speaker, I want to publicly thank the government for making
available airplane transportation to and from the riding to
Victoria. It has been of great assistance in enabling me to
better serve these citizens.

The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, did not give too much information on the government's
programme for this session, but it did give some information on what we might
expect. I look forward to the legislation which is to come. I might add that
this throne speech is certainly not any better or any worse than the last five
throne speeches I have read or have heard.

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed and upset at the actions of this
government with our senior public servants. It is not a proper
way to treat career, dedicated people, to suddenly after many
years demote them and replace them with inexperienced party
hacks. Most of the Deputy Ministers who have been demoted have
spent their lives in the public service; to be suddenly set
aside a few years before retirement is shameful, Mr. Speaker,
just shameful.

What future is there for our young people entering the
public service of British Columbia today? They certainly know
they will never be able to reach the top after many years of
dedicated service. The actions this government has taken with
the senior public servants have certainly had a demoralizing
effect on all public servants and this is most regrettable for
all of British Columbia.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have made a review of some of
the actions of this government after its first full year of
operation. While some of the backbenchers of the government
feel the record of the government is excellent, I cannot agree.
The forest industry, our largest industry, has stopped all new
investment in our province. The mining industry is not making
the investments they should because of the fear of this
government's future mining policy. Capital investment has
decreased sharply in all sectors, Mr. Speaker, and we've heard
the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) attack another of our
major industries, the tourist industry. The Minister of Finance
(Hon. Mr. Barrett) has a policy of excessive taxation to create
huge surpluses. I say the government's performance in its first
year has been less than satisfactory and trouble lies ahead for
this great province of ours. Thank you.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
rise on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Burrard to speak in
support of the Speech from the Throne. But before doing that,
I'd like to congratulate five of my colleagues who have
ascended into the cabinet and also the new Member who took his
seat in this House yesterday (Mr. Bennett). I would like to
extend to all of them my very best wishes and the very best
wishes of all the people in Burrard.

I visited my constituency last night, Mr. Speaker, using one
of the free airline passes that we have. I would like to assure
you that the people in Burrard are very pleased, particularly
pleased, that labour legislation is going to be given priority
attention this session.

In the past 20 years the workers of this province have
laboured under some pretty repressive legislation, some pretty
archaic legislation, legislation that was never designed to
ease their burden and

which threw up every barrier whenever those among them tried
to organize into trade unions.

This government has been in office for a year now and,
during that time, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has
assured us that he has been taking a good, hard, long look at
all the labour legislation that is now on the books. Now we
learn from the Speech from the Throne that he is ready to ask
us to consider a new labour code. This new labour code, we have
been told, will establish an improved framework for collective
bargaining and dispute settlement.

Expectations are running high, Mr. Speaker, and I would like
to state a few of the hopes and a few of the expectations that
I and the people of Vancouver-Burrard have for this
legislation.

It is our hope that the new labour code will deal with the
matter of first contracts. There have been many instances over
the past year when, despite a stacked deck, a local was able to
gain certification only to be stymied when it tried to
negotiate a first contract. It is my impression — and I think
this is a correct one — that each year there have been at least
a dozen strikes which have been fought over this issue of first
contract. In many instances, these strikes have been lost.

Without wanting to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to cite one such example and that is the case of
Sandringham Hospital right here in the City of Victoria. As
everyone knows, for nearly three years the workers at
Sandringham Hospital have been trying to negotiate a first
contract. In reply to a question asked on the floor of this
house yesterday, the Minister (Hon. Mr. King) explained that
under existing legislation there was absolutely nothing he
could do to terminate the deadlock between labour and
management at Sandringham Hospital, "because the employers were
not prepared to bargain in good faith."

Another example, Mr. Speaker: the Shoppers Drug Mart strike. That strike is
now in the process of being settled, but it should not have been necessary at
all. And Denny's Restaurant, another strike which has still not been settled.
All these have occurred because of the absence of legislation that dealt fairly
and adequately with first contracts.

Because so much of my concern is centred around women in the
labour force, Mr. Speaker, much of the changes in the labour
legislation that I am hoping for affects them.

It is my hope, for example, that the Factories Act will be
amended. This Act, as you know, covers a lot of what is known
as protective legislation. It's legislation that says, for
example, that a factory, shop or office in which females are
employed should have rest rooms and space and reasonable
privacy and couches and cots and chairs and this sort of thing.
It's the Act that also states that women need more bathrooms
than men do.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, it is preferential treatment, actually.

We would like to see these types of protective legislation
extended to cover men, too. We believe that men are human
(Laughter) and that if the Act finds it necessary to provide
couches and cots and chairs and bathrooms for the women, it
should provide them for the men too.

On the surface it might seem that this legislation really
demonstrates a concern for women. In point of fact, the
requirements outlined in this Act are often used as an excuse
not to hire us. I have received on more than one occasion
complaints from women who wanted to work for the Department of
Highways, for example, but who could not be hired because there
were not separate bathroom facilities.

Earlier this afternoon we heard a question in the House from
the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who was asking about
the hiring of women to work for the Liquor Control Board. The
Attorney General explained that one of the reasons why this was
not possible was because of the weight involved — how heavy the
cases of beer were that had to be lifted on and off the trucks.
In point of fact, regulation 3 of the Factories Act makes very
stringent rules about the weight — 35 pounds it says, no more,
that women are permitted to lift. We feel that if there is a
weight factor this also should be extended to cover the men. I
am sure you know, as I do, many men who cannot lift 35 pounds
in the same way that we know many women who can lift much more
than 35 pounds. As a matter of fact it is a very rare mother
indeed who has not had to lift a child weighing more than 35
pounds at one time or another during her life, or a heavy pail
of diapers or something of that matter. So we would like to see
this amendment extended to cover the men the same way that it
does the women.

The same thing applies to regulation 4 of the Factories Act — the one that has to do with overhead stacking. I know, and we
all know, that these protective clauses were fought for, and we
know that the battle to get them incorporated in legislation
was a long and sometimes bloody one. But I also know that male
workers have as much need for this type of protection as women
do, and that to fail to expand this protection to them is to
continue to oppress them.

I am against oppression, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the
Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) will seek to amend all of
this legislation to ensure that both men and women will be able
to work under safe and reasonable conditions.

Another piece of legislation that falls in the Minister's
portfolio is that of the Minimum Wage Act. This act, as you
will remember, Mr. Speaker, was

amended in the fall of last year and, indeed, it was a step
in the right direction, because it recognized the concept of
equal pay for work regardless of sex. It was unsuccessful,
however, in three areas.

First, it was not extended to cover a very large group of
people who work on farms or those people classified as
household help. In my travels around the province with the
Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education we
were continually made aware of the hardship that this caused
those women who sought to work as homemakers on this home-care
project, but who, because they were not covered by this
legislation, were often offered less than the minimum wage and
so were unable to demand at least the minimum wage because they
were not covered by the Act.

The second flaw in the Act has to do with the age factor.
And I say the age factor because, as you will remember, the Act
provides for $2 an hour over the age of 18 and less below the
age of 18. What this resulted in in many instances was that
many women who were working in department stores on weekends or
on a part-time capacity found that they were removed from their
jobs, and their jobs were given to women 18 years of age for no
other reason than to cut the payroll expenditure. This is
especially hard on the middle-aged woman who, as we learned
from an article in the Sun newspaper yesterday on the editorial
page, works because she has to and not necessarily because she
wants to.

The third area of concern cannot really be dealt with as a
failure, Mr. Speaker, but just as an area of concern. And that
is the Industrial Relations Board. This Act requires that at
least one of the board members should be a woman, and I would
like to urge the Minister not to accept this minimum
requirement as a maximum requirement.

Another Act that falls under the labour legislation is the
Workmen's Compensation Act. I would like to concur completely
with everything said by the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) about
the Workmen's Compensation Board. I, too, can give hair-raising
examples of strange decisions arrived at by that board in the
past, particularly affecting disabilities dating back to the
'40s. We must, Mr. Speaker, reopen the files of those people
and bring their pensions into the 20th century. The
inflexibility of the board is legendary. The conditions must
change and maybe one way to do this would be to begin by
amending the 1968 Act.

In every instance where the word "widow" is used in the Act, I would like to
suggest that we substitute the word "dependent spouse." In this way we would
ensure that widowers — and not necessarily those who are invalided, because
the Act now covers invalided widowers — would not be discriminated against.
The same recommendation would apply if we substituted the words "foster parent"
wherever the words "foster mother" are presently used. What this would do, Mr.
Speaker, is to take into account the change in lifestyles that we are now dealing
with and the fact that, as rare as it may seem, there are some instances where
the man of the house would rather remain at home and take care of the children
than would the mother, and when this happens he would not be penalized for doing
so.

Before closing this section on labour legislation, I would
like to quote from a speech given by Miss Marg Storm at a
conference in Kamloops recently. She said:

"I've had the protection of the IWA for 27 years and I realize
that the largest group of unorganized workers are women. The exploitation, discrimination
and poor working conditions that they have had to endure through the years brings
out the trade union anger in me. The labour legislation that we have had to
live with has made it impossible to protect these women while trying to organize
them. It is my hope that these inequities will be corrected during the fall
session of this Legislature."

That is also my hope and the hope of the people in Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Speaker.

This year, Mr. Speaker, has been designated as Human Rights
Year. This year the world is celebrating the 25th anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Surely there is
no more fitting way to celebrate this year than to introduce
some meaningful human rights legislation. By coincidence, Mr.
Speaker, the human rights legislation in this province is also
embodied in its labour legislation, so once again I confess to
the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) that my expectations are
high.

My expectations are that, despite the fact that the matter
of human rights was not mentioned in the throne speech, human
rights legislation will be forthcoming during this session, and
that this legislation will ensure in the field of labour, at
least, equal job and pay opportunities for all, regardless of
their race, sex, marital status, age, religious belief, ethnic
origin, sexual orientation, political affiliation or whatever,
and that this legislation, furthermore, will apply equally to
the Crown, non-profit organizations, educational institutions,
or whatever.

I would like to suggest further that the present Act cannot
be amended. Various groups in our society have tried to amend
the Act, Mr. Speaker, and it is so badly written or, as the
ex-Minister of Labour, the Member for Columbia River (Mr.
Chabot) likes to quote me as saying, it has so many holes that
you can run a truck through it. I really did say that and I
would like to say it again. I think that the Act has to be
rewritten, and when it is rewritten it must include marital
status in all sections as a specific characteristic against
which discrimination is forbidden. It must

ensure that jobs may not be restricted to members of one sex
because of heavy physical labour, late-night hours, preference
of co-workers, tradition or any other specious reasons.

It must ensure that no student can be denied access to any
school, university course, training programme, apprentice
programme, or any other kind of vocational programme, because
of race, sex, age or any other reason.

That the faculty of law, the only faculty of law in this
province, could have managed to graduate only two native Indian
students during its 27 years of existence is a disgrace. That
so few native Indian teachers have passed through our system is
a disgrace. That the top echelon of our civil service number
not even one woman among its ranks, and here I am referring to
the Deputy, Associate Deputy and Assistant Deputy level, is a
disgrace and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not
the kind of disgrace that this government can continue to live
with.

I recognize that we inherited this problem from a government
which condoned oppression of women in employment, but the
opportunity is now ours, and one of our most effective tools
could be the Human Rights Act and I, as indeed with most people
in this province, will be very disappointed if a new Human
Rights Act is not tabled in this House during this session.

The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, also mentioned that
there were going to be amendments to the Municipal Act. As the
representative of an urban riding, I welcome this news. I
welcome it in the hope that it will mean a closer liaison
between the two levels of government, and more dialogue between
these levels of government and the people of Vancouver. I am
tired of the cavalier manner in which the carving up of the
city is being conducted without any evidence of overall
planning. I have no idea what the amendments will cover, but I
hope that it will ensure that if this province plans to solve
its housing crisis through the development of units and the use
of land in the City of Vancouver, this should be done in
consultation with the municipal committee on housing as well as
with the people of the City of Vancouver.

It is my hope that the voice of these people will be heard
and that their wishes will be treated with respect. If
Vancouver indeed constitutes a part of the overall
transportation design for this province, then it is my hope
that this planning will be done in consultation with the
municipal government and with the people of Vancouver. Further,
it is my hope that all planning and all designs will be
integrated and will proceed at all times with the full and open
knowledge and support of the people of the City of
Vancouver.

The people of Vancouver, the people who live there, have a pretty good idea
of what they want for that city and of how they want to see that city grow,
and I hope that we will never lose contact and will never fail to listen to
their communications. Closer liaison, Mr. Speaker, between the levels of government,
is what we are looking for. It is no longer enough for the two levels to meet
merely to discuss funding. The whole growth and design of this city will affect,
and in turn will be affected by, the rest of this province, and we cannot lose
sight of this.

Last fall, I expressed the hope that the government would
take a serious look at the whole area of provincial-municipal
financing, and I certainly hope that this is one of the areas
in which the amendment to the Municipal Act will take
place.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deny my disappointment that
the Speech from the Throne has given no indication that the
government has any plans to deal with the plight of women in
this province. I am disappointed because I thought that surely
after a year in office we would be ready to move in the
direction of some meaningful legislation on their behalf. But
who knows? There may be surprises in store for us. So, with
this in mind, I would like to speak very briefly on behalf of
one group of women.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly move your microphone so it
doesn't touch anything. It seems to be causing some static.

MS. BROWN: I would like to speak, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
one group of women, the largest group of women in our province;
namely, those women who have chosen to remain in the home. The
homemaker or housewife, whichever you prefer to call her; in
any event, that group referred to by John Kenneth Galbraith as
the crypto-servants of America.

Mr. Galbraith tells us that the woman who "devotes herself
to the well-being of her family, who is a gracious helpmate, a
good manager, or who, at lesser levels of elegance, is a good
housekeeper or a real homebody," is "uniquely moral" and
represents the highest of social virtue.

Society tells us that the mother and wife are among the most
valued and cherished members of our community. What they fail
to mention, Mr. Speaker, is that they are also among the most
insecure and least protected members of society. The woman in
the home is totally dependent on her spouse. She is completely
dependent on him financially and, in the event of some mishap
such as divorce, desertion or separation, she often has no
recourse short of social assistance.

This government must find some way to give security,
financial security, to this group of women. The real tragedy,
of course, is that so many of these women are in their late
forties or early fifties. The new Mincome programme which goes
into effect on October 1 is a blessing. It was not designed
only for women, of course; it covers everyone. But, in point of
fact, it will have more impact and more effect on the lives of
women than it will on the lives of men, if for no other reason
than that we usually outlive the men.

MR. GARDOM: You know why? (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: We're stronger.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go.

MS. BROWN: What this Mincome programme means is that many of
these women will be able to get off social assistance five
years earlier than they would normally. But the young mother
with small children, or the middle-aged woman with no skill
other than a great ability to love and nurture her family,
finds herself at a decided disadvantage when she suddenly is
without any form of financial support and is forced to enter
the labour market.

This government must address itself to the dilemma of this
segment of the population. Today, if the young mother on
welfare tries to enrol in university in an attempt to complete
her education or get a profession, she is immediately cut off
from her welfare payment. Not only is she discouraged, but she
is actually forbidden by the financial realities of the
situation from trying to enhance her educational status.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, now that we have in this province an
insurance company that can insure us against fire and against
theft, surely this company could also look into the matter of
insuring the woman in the home against complete loss of
security in the event of desertion or divorce.

I would like to suggest, or I would like to strongly recommend, that as a planned
and vital function of the new insurance company of B.C. there should be some
kind of provision designed to guarantee that the housewife who suddenly finds
that she must enter the labour market as a result of death, or desertion, or
divorce, or some other type of misfortune, will have some kind of financial
support while she is in the process of training, or re-training, or otherwise
preparing herself for re-entering the labour force.

Although this request has been put forward on behalf of
women, it really should apply to the dependent spouse whoever
that happens to be. As I mentioned earlier, with our changing
lifestyles it is possible, Mr. Speaker, that there are times
when this kind of financial insecurity could apply to the man
in the home.

It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that many married women may
never find it necessary to ever use this type of insurance, but
the rate of marriage breakdowns being as high as it is, and
getting even higher, would seem to indicate that some type of
security is necessary to do for the woman who stays at home
what unemployment insurance does for the person who loses her
or his job.

Before I leave this topic, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out that the report on the status of women outlined many
areas of responsibility which fell within the venue of this
province and of all provinces which needed changing. This
province is probably far ahead of most other provinces in terms
of meeting some of these recommendations and in terms of
meeting its responsibilities. But there are still a number of
recommendations still not implemented, among them
recommendation 164 which states:

"We recommend that the federal or provincial
territories and municipal governments each establish an implementation
committee composed of a number of its senior administrators to plan
for, coordinate and expedite the implementation of the recommendations
made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women."

This has not yet been implemented. It is my hope that
recommendation 164 will be implemented in this sitting of the
Legislature, and also that the convention resolution which was
passed and is now part of the policy of the New Democratic
Party for a ministry of women will receive some kind of
priority attention from this government.

I stated earlier in my speech, Mr. Speaker, that I represent
an urban riding, a riding where at least 50 per cent of the
constituents occupy rental accommodation. This number is
growing. Consequently, the Landlord and Tenant Act and the
amendments to it which were passed during the last session of
the House were of primary concern to us. It soon became clear
that the amendments did not go far enough and that the Act was
failing to give renters the adequate protection which they
needed. This was drawn to the attention of the Attorney General
and he has since referred this Act to the Law Reform Commission
for study. I'm sure the commission will do a thorough job in
this area.

Nonetheless, I would like to take this opportunity to bring
to the attention of the Attorney General that

the tenants in Vancouver-Burrard are still being exploited,
that they are impatient and hope the report of the Law Reform
Commission will be tabled before this session of the
Legislature is completed, and that there will be further
amendments to that Act. The areas of most flagrant abuse are
those of eviction without just cause and the ones covering
unconscionable rise in rents.

The strata-title crisis in the City of Vancouver has been
halted for a while due to the actions of the city council
freezing all such strata-title matters for the period of a
year.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words
about the Social Welfare and Education committee. The Speech
from the Throne spoke of the activities of the standing
committees of the House, Mr. Speaker. I had the privilege to be
a part of two such committees and both of these committees
travelled throughout this province during the recess between the
sessions. As chairman of the committee on Social Welfare and
Education, I would like now to ask leave of the House to table
the 150 briefs and submissions which were made to my committee
during its tours.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the purpose is to have them
available to the public in the Clerk's office. Is that
correct?

MS. BROWN: By all means, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: The job of this committee, as you know, Mr.
Speaker, was to look at the need for home care in the health
delivery system and make recommendations. Its job was not to
write health-care legislation but to examine the need and make
recommendations to this House. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker,
that this committee did its job. Travelling and meeting with the
people, listening to their submissions, we learned much, not
only about the delivery of health care but about many other
aspects of the life of the people of this province. It was a
very worthwhile endeavour and it is my hope that the precedent
set will become an established practice.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue a plea for
more flexibility in decision-making in government. I'm thinking
now specifically of two cases concerning people who live in
Vancouver-Burrard.

One of them had to do with a 59-year-old woman who was living common-law for
17 years while the man with whom she was living waited for a divorce from his
wife. After 17 years, the divorce was finally finalized and plans were made
for them to marry. The minister was contacted and everything was in readiness
for the wedding. Unfortunately, the man immediately took ill and died.

Because they had not lived common-law for 20 years, she was
not regarded under the Act as his wife and as a result of this
had a lot of difficulty in the probating of his will and
inheriting whatever small estate that was left. The common-law
stepdaughter of this woman and the minister involved and
everyone else contacted me as the representative for the riding
and I, in turn, had to make a plea on behalf of this woman to
have her case dealt with on compassionate grounds.

It was successfully settled, Mr. Speaker, and I'm happy to
say she did get the estate eventually. What I am saying,
however, is that it should not have been necessary to go
through all of that to have this matter dealt with.

The second case has to do with an elderly woman who applied
for the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant and her cheque was due to
come through on April 13. Unfortunately, she died on April 4,
but she had paid rent on her apartment up to April 30. When her
son explained this and asked that the cheque for that month
come through to meet the rental requirements, he was told that
she had failed to meet the requirements spelled out in the Act
and so this matter could not be dealt with. The requirement
spelled out in the Act, Mr. Speaker, was that she had to be
alive at the time that the cheque was paid out, and by dying
nine days earlier she did not meet these requirements.

Now, surely, Mr. Speaker, if there is one fact that has been
established through the ages, it is that we have very little
control over when or even how we die. So, in closing, I would
like to ask that the quality of mercy be exercised more
generously in governmental decisions and that we never lose
touch and cease to heed the people whom we are here not to rule
but to represent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: I too would like to express my thanks for
the chance to enter into this throne speech debate in this fall
session of the Legislature. I too would like to welcome my new
colleague from South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) to the House. I
would also like to take the opportunity with some of the other
Members to welcome the people from the B.C. Association of
Non-Status Indians to the House today, and in particular, the
president, Mr. House, who was in the Speaker's gallery. If he's
still there, I'd like to welcome Mr. House to Victoria.

I was reminded, first of all, by the Member for South Peace
River's (Mr. Phillips) comments, and then the comments about
the Premier who has now become the world champion bull thrower,
that the world is a bit of a small place.

I'm reminded of a story that our colleague from Chilliwack
(Mr. Schroeder) tells about a 250-watt radio station down in
Wyoming that he knew about

when he was in the Wyoming area. I think it reached about
eight people in a radius of 11 miles or so. The disc jockey
used to get on the air every morning and say, "Good morning,
world." That's the kind of confidence we like to see in the
House.

I'd also like to compliment the Public Works department on
the repairs and renovations to the House. As a member of the
committee that sat and recommended that television be proceeded
with in this House, I feel I may have made a mistake because
the recommendation was that television be allowed provided it
didn't disturb either the decorum of the House or the comfort
of the Members of the House.

Some of us do have a sun rash and it's very uncomfortable at
times. I notice many of the members of the press gallery have
gone out and bought eye-shades. I went out today and bought an
expensive pair of sunglasses, and I'm going to have to wear
them in the House because it is extremely uncomfortable under
the lights of the House.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and they look much better through these
sunglasses — rose-coloured glasses.

I'd also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it was interesting
that the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) gave
an impassioned speech against discrimination in employment for
women the same day that the Attorney General said that women
could not be hired in Liquor Control Board retail stores
because they can't move cases of liquor — the same women who,
in the home, as the Second Member for Burrard so eloquently
pointed out — move refrigerators, pianos, chesterfields and
everything else that's necessary; but they can't move a case of
booze in the Liquor Control Board store.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Second Member for
Vancouver-Burrard should look to her own government first of
all for this kind of discrimination because there is no reason
for women in this province to be refused jobs, particularly in
Liquor Control Board retail stores. But they are being refused
jobs.

I have a number of letters from women who say they have
applied for jobs in Liquor Control Board retail stores and they
have been told, "No, the policy of the Liquor Control Board is
that we do not hire women in these positions."

Mr. Speaker, I would also mention briefly a few comments
about the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and
Education. I won't go into details of a minority opinion that I
filed with the press and with the chairperson of that committee — with prior knowledge of the committee, as a matter of
fact.

But I do want to say that I hope the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was
misquoted in this morning's paper in this article which says that "Cocke Defends
Health Report Role." If he was quoted correctly, it seems very much like the
Minister of Health is saying that that committee was merely window-dressing
and that the Minister of Health could have done it himself; there was no need
for the committee.

The Minister of Health is quoted as saying in this article:
"While that committee went out for 15 days, I went out for six
solid weeks visiting hospitals, health units and different
groups all over the province. Now based on what I did, I
consider I got as much input as the committee."

He could have done it himself. What was the purpose of the
committee? I'd like to express my displeasure, Mr. Speaker,
with the fact that while that committee was an interesting one
and an exciting one and one in which I was proud to take part — and I compliment the chairperson on that — I'm disappointed
that in the final deliberations of that committee, the members
never got the chance to see the final report as it was written.
Never got the chance. We should have been given that chance,
Mr. Speaker.

There was an astonishing hurry for the report of that
committee. I can only assume that the need for rush and haste
was because the Minister of Health wanted to make some
announcements and he couldn't do it without embarrassing the
committee if we didn't file our report first. The members of
that committee did not get the opportunity to see the final
draft of that report. Now it's as simple as that, and there's
no way around it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm hearing from the Hon.
Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon.
Mr. Lauk) that I wasn't there. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say
right now that my attendance in those committee hearings was as
good and better than any of the other members. I was not there
for the final reading because it was never given to us. It was
never given to us; we never had the opportunity to read the
final report.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Minister of Industrial
whatever-it-is to apologize for that because I didn't miss any
of those meetings; we never had the opportunity. We were not
given the opportunity; is that plain? Is it clear? Do you
understand it, Mr. Minister? We were not given the opportunity,
Mr. Speaker, and that'll be the end of that.

I'd like to ask the Minister how many meetings he attended.
How many meetings did you attend, Mr. Minister?

MS. BROWN: I'd like to reply to the accusation that the
members were deprived from seeing the last….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you have any correction you
wish to make on any imputation that's been made about you or
anyone concerned, would you do so at the end of the Hon.
Member's speech, please?

MS. BROWN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was only trying to
bring an end to the diatribe between these two.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: In this House a peace-maker is not always
welcome. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to impute any
negligence on the part of any member of that committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let him get on with his diatribe.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, let me get on with my diatribe.

I'd like to begin my participation in the throne speech
debate, Mr. Speaker, first of all by just talking briefly about
some educational problems that we have in our constituency. I'm
sorry that the Minister's not in but I'm sure that these things
will be passed on to her.

Briefly, the problem is that the Langley constituency,
particularly the Langley School District, School District 35,
is a rapidly growing school district, perhaps the most rapidly
growing in British Columbia. Because of that rapid growth,
there are some serious problems being experienced in Langley
School District.

Basically, those problems have to do with overcrowding and the need for more
essential classrooms as quickly as possible. Last session in the House I quoted
from a document, which was written by the district superintendent of Langley
School District, entitled "The Educational Plan for a Decade."

I'd just like to draw the Minister's attention to that
document once again because, while it was written in 1969, many
of the problems detailed in that document continue today. The
situation, as outlined to the Education Minister (Hon. Mrs.
Dailly), is now critical.

We have six secondary schools in Langley School District;
four of them happen to be on shifts right now. One elementary
school in the Langley School District is now on shifts. We're
utilizing, in the Langley School District, church halls for
kindergartens, which isn't a bad idea; but most of those halls
are not set up to handle those students, and it's causing some
hardships for them.

Many of the elementary libraries in our schools are also
being used as kindergartens — and as classrooms as well.
Schools presently under construction are being bothered because
of labour disputes and other construction problems; the rail
strike held back much of our construction.

Right away we need some portable classrooms and we need a
number of things in our school district. It's going to cost
about $400,000, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to urge the Education
Minister to give real priority to this request for extra money
for School District 35.

We have a problem which is not being faced in any other area
of British Columbia at this time because many of the other
schools are finding either a leveling off of school population
or, in fact, a decline in school population. That's not the
case in School District 35 in Langley. The need is urgent. I'd
like the Minister of Education to treat it as urgent.

I'd like also, Mr. Speaker, to call on the Government of
British Columbia to clean up the mess that it has caused in
British Columbia in relation to land-use matters. Mr. Speaker,
nothing that this government has done so far has caused so much
confusion, so much uncertainty, so much chaos, as its fumbling,
amateurish attempts to establish new land-use policies in this
province.

Not only have those attempts initiated a very dramatic
increase in residential land prices — an almost criminal jump,
as a matter of fact, in the cost of land and housing; and that,
of course, contributes even more to the inflationary spiral — but the land-use policies of this government have also rendered
it almost impossible to get even the most minor changes or
decision in land-use policy done without being choked in some
kind of bureaucratic jungle.

No one in British Columbia knows who's doing what to whom.
Because you can't get any decisions made in land-use matters
you go to the regional district, and you're told to go to the
Land Commission and from the Land Commission you're told to go
to the Minister of Agriculture, you're told

to go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.
Lorimer); from the Minister of Municipal Affairs you are told
to go to the Environment and Land Use Committee; from the
Environment and Land Use Committee you are told to go to the
regional district and you are right back where you started from — and you haven't any decisions made. And that's only in the
minor matters; wait until you find out what happens when you've
got a major decision to get. It's impossible.

Who is responsible for land-use matters in British Columbia?
Is it the Lands and Forests Minister? Is it the Minister of
Municipal Affairs? Is it the Land Commission? Is it the
land-use secretariat? Who is it? Nobody knows. That's one of
the reasons why there are 800 or 900 applications right now
sitting on the desk of the Environment and Land Use Committee
not being processed.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they're going to get a new desk.
That's right; they'll probably come up with some solutions when
they find they have to get out of the dilemma they are in with
their own insurance claim centre in Richmond which has been
frozen. (Laughter.) But there isn't anybody in charge — that's
the problem. Nobody in charge and no coordination in land-use
matters in British Columbia.

The matter was really highlighted effectively by the actions
of the Cariboo Regional District recently. The Cariboo Regional
District refused to go through the charade of holding public
hearings in connection with the establishment of a land-use
reserve. The Cariboo Regional District was the only regional
district in British Columbia, as a matter of fact, that was
able to see through the smoke-screen that this government has
thrown up in front of Bill 42. The Cariboo Regional District
refuses to jeopardize its credibility with its people by
holding a public hearing to deal with matters over which it has
no real control and about which it is almost certain to be
overruled. The Cariboo Regional District believes in the need
for honesty in its public hearings and it refused to fall for
the malarky that it was being asked for input when in reality,
as is so often true in the actions of this government, there is
only the flimsy appearance and none of the reality of
cooperation with the people who are supposed to be in
partnership with this government: the people of the regional
districts and the municipal councils.

I'd like to just briefly show you a file I have which points out the futility
of trying to get anything done in land-use matters in this province. I would
like to remind you that this is only one example, and it's a file of considerable
volume dealing with a gentleman in my riding who really had a terrible problem.
You know what he wanted to do, Mr. Speaker? He wanted to build a house on his
farm — as simple as that. He had a farm, he wanted to farm it and he wanted
to build a house on it. It's not such a bad idea. The guy needed a house because
he had to be close to his cattle.

Well, the first letter I wrote to this government, Mr.
Speaker, was on March 19. I would like to say that he finally
did get the building…well, at least he almost has the
building permit now. The first letter I wrote was on March 19
and we went around and around and around in circles trying to
get a building permit for this gentleman to build a house on
his own farm. The man wanted to be a farmer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Man needs a good MLA.

MR. McCLELLAND: The man has a good MLA, Mr. Speaker. We
finally convinced the provincial government that we needed to
do something about his problem. Then we got hung up with the
municipal council which was passing the buck because the
legislation passed by this government has fogged up the whole
area of land use so badly that municipal councils in British
Columbia are afraid to act. They don't know what to do.

I got so frustrated trying to get a decision on this thing
that I finally wrote a letter to the Minister of Lands, Forests
and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), condominiums, Pacific
National Exhibition, and whatever else he happens to be. I
wrote about a 5-page letter to him outlining exactly the
problems we had with this gentleman who wanted to be a farmer
and wanted to build a house on his own farm.

I got a letter back from the Minister's office which said:
"Dear Mr. McClelland, Re: Mr. and Mrs. van Wootenburg. Thank
you for your letter of July 17th. The matter had come to my
attention earlier and has been resolved." Just that, in answer
to my 5-page letter, and it's not signed by the Minister.
Nobody has ever had a letter signed by that Minister.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): I have.

MR. McCLELLAND: Have you? Mark on the wall. First Member in
history to have a letter signed by the Minister of Lands,
Forests and Water Resources.

The letter is signed by Norman Pearson, the executive
assistant, Mr. Speaker. And it says in two lines: "Thank you
for your letter of July 17th. The matter had come to my
attention earlier and has been resolved."

The matter wasn't resolved. The matter hadn't even been
nearly resolved yet, and this assistant didn't even have the
courtesy to refer in any more detail to my letter than, "Thank
you for the…the matter has now been resolved."

the executive assistant. I got an answer to that letter back
and it said: "Thank you for your letter of August 6th referring
to my letter of July 27 regarding Mr. van Wootenburg. I
apologize for my letter. It was probably written at a late hour
after a heavy day, just like this one. It is now 11:10 p.m.
Sunday night." He was tired. "Previous to receiving your letter
I had thought we had solved the problem. I will make contact
with the municipality again to see what the difficulty is."

The executive assistant was tired, Mr. Speaker, and I feel
sorry for him. But do you know that that letter wasn't even
signed by the executive assistant. (Laughter.) It was signed by
his executive assistant…(Laughter.)…a Mr. Boutillier.
Boy, he was too tired to write me back so he got his executive
assistant who wasn't quite so tired.

But that's the kind of response we get from this Ministry,
and it's one of the reasons that the land-use problems in this
province are in such a mess.

Earlier I mentioned the land-use secretariat. Well, when the
Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources introduced this
exotic creation, he referred to it as a small secretariat — you
remember that — and he announced that its members would advise
the cabinet on land-use matters.

Now, some of us were under the mistaken notion that the
Environment and Land Use Committee was advising the cabinet on
land-use matters, or that the Land Commission was set up to
advise the cabinet on land-use matters. But that wasn't quite
good enough, I guess; it didn't provide enough room for all of
the Minister's friends and former classmates and teachers from
UBC, so he had to set up a small secretariat with 83 members
and a budget of a million bucks a year. They just appointed a
director the other day who is getting $33,000 a year; they got
an order-in-council the other day that gave them the first
half-a-million so they're well on their way. This small
secretariat: a million dollars worth of new and unnecessary
bureaucracy. It's just another example of the fantastic waste
and extravagance of this government.

We have all heard about the renovations of the offices of
Human Resources Minister. I won't mention that anymore except
to say that I was told the other day that his desk sleeps three
people. It must be quite a desk. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Midgets. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: There is a serious note to this government's
handling of its governmental services. The increases in the
costs of operation of the Ministers' offices, for instance, is
really a scandal of major proportions. Unbelievable increases
in just the cost of operating the Ministers' offices.

It has been said that under socialism the functions of government will be taken
away from the elected representatives and turned over to an all-powerful hierarchy
of boards, commissions and bureaucrats. Mr. Shumaker said that in Regina in
one of his books about socialism. A fine socialist, Mr. Shumaker. Shumiatcher?
Shoebanger? I don't know.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I read the book; it's an excellent
book. Mr. Speaker, we are watching that come true in British
Columbia. The Land Commission which is completely outside the
jurisdiction of this Legislature; the extremely powerful energy
board; the elevation of executive assistants and super-flacks
to positions of almost total control in key departments — those
are just a few examples of the way this government is isolating
itself from the public and from the Legislature.

It's extremely sad to watch this government appoint to
positions of both influence and importance people whose only
qualities for those positions would seem to be party loyalty.
And appointing people too often from outside of British
Columbia, far too often bypassing people of not only
imagination but of quality who are already in this province. I
believe that you should go where the best people are, but first
of all you must consider those people you already have within
your province for those kinds of jobs.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Did the Minister of Industrial Development,
Trade and Commerce hire his party hack before he was a
Minister? Is that right? Goodness, goodness.

You are also, Mr. Speaker, appointing too many people over
the heads of deserving people within the civil service.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is any mis-statement the Hon. Members
can ask for an explanation to be made to the House at the
conclusion of the Member's speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That escaped me.

It is extremely sad as well, Mr. Speaker, to see this
government appointing people over the heads of deserving people
who are already within the civil service. Some of us warned
that we were seeing only the beginning when we saw what I
consider to be the shocking appointment of a former Burnaby
mayor to the post of Assistant Deputy of Municipal Affairs. But
I don't think any of us had any idea of how right we really
were and to what lengths this government

This government is turning the civil service upside-down in
a purge the like of which has never been known in our
province's history. And that's sad, Mr. Speaker. The concept of
a free and independent civil service in this province is
threatened. It is a threat that extends to the very roots of
democracy. The top level of the civil service is rapidly being
replaced by a new level of patronage-inspired appointments. In
all the things that it does, Mr. Speaker, this government
advances political expediency over fair play and good
sense.

The folly, Mr. Speaker, of the practices of this government
will lead only to a complete breakdown of governmental
processes, because once you break down that free and
independent civil service, and let me tell you it is breaking
down rapidly, Mr. Speaker, there is no way any longer in
British Columbia that a civil servant can aspire to the highest
job in the civil service, because he can only now go to that
level. From that level on to the top it will be filled by a
political appointment. And we see that in the sideways
shuffling of our top civil servants in this province right
now.

The only thing that that kind of demoralization of the civil
service can lead to, Mr. Speaker, is a breakdown of the
governmental processes, because once you destroy the free and
independent status of the civil service you do break down the
governmental processes.

Mr. Speaker, the credibility of this government has been
seriously impaired by its actions over the past few months.

HON. MR. LAUK: You haven't been around too long, have
you?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the credibility of this
government has been seriously impaired by its actions over the
past few months. Let's take a look at a couple of specific
items. Expo '74. We were all firmly on the side of this
government, Mr. Speaker, when we heard the news that the
federal government was backing out of its commitment to
participate in Expo '74 in Spokane, Washington, and we
applauded when that same Minister, the Minister of Industrial
Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) announced that
British Columbia was coming to the rescue at Expo. But wait; we
finally learned that the real reason that Ottawa decided to
pull out was because the B.C. government showed no interest in
taking part, and was really only interested in making headlines
for political expediency.

Let us look at Mincome, Mr. Speaker. When the government announced its planned
expansion of the Mincome programme, for which I compliment the Human Resources
Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the government, the Premier told us that it looked
good for revenue sharing, for federal participation in the costs, and that preliminary
discussions had already been held. Well, wait a minute, Mr. Speaker. The Minister
in Ottawa tells us that he knew nothing about the programme, and that he had
never been consulted. He knew nothing about it, despite the fact that the Premier
said it looked good for revenue sharing and that he had consulted Ottawa first.

Let's look at the ferry strike, Mr. Speaker. I won't go into
details because it has been canvassed quite well in this House.
But here we see the spectacle of the government crying "uncle"
to the demands of a group of people who were breaking the law.
The Minister responsible said he had a gun to his head. Well,
if that gun had gone off, Mr. Speaker, it would have been
suicide, not murder, because the wound would have been
self-inflicted by the actions of the Minister and the actions
of this government.

Let's look at the plans for northern development and the
northern rail development. This government made some
announcements, Mr. Speaker, about northern development. The
Premier painted a picture of magnificent negotiating ability on
his own part, and the press fell for it. I must say that the
press took his posturing hook, line and sinker. It was as
though the socialists had some kind of a magic wand through
which the agreements suddenly materialized out of the thin air
of socialist British Columbia.

But let's wait once again. What really happened? The entire
package of northern development, Mr. Speaker, was essentially
completed by the summer of 1972. The agreement to proceed on
the package was reached at a meeting between the then Premier,
the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, the federal Minister of Transport, Mr.
Don Jamieson, Mr. Williston, Mr. Skillings, our colleague Mr.
Richter and Mr. Dan Campbell on April 2, 1972. At the
conclusion of these meetings it was agreed that there were no
outstanding questions of principle, but there were some
technical details to be firmed up in order that they could form
the basis for a formal memorandum of agreement. Apart from the
capital costs involved, Mr. Speaker, the overriding
consideration was that the CNR system between Prince Rupert and
Prince George should move towards the same kind of resource
rate structure as obtained on the BCR itself in order to give
the forest industry complex between Prince George and Prince
Rupert exactly the same economic rate structure as obtained on
the BCR, particularly for chips. In addition, the two railways
were to expand their northern lines in such a way as to prevent
duplication and to permit the wide possible interchange for the
resource potential of the area.

Prior to the defeat of the former government three very
specific things were set in motion by the Social Credit
government. First of all, the Dease Lake extension was
authorized and construction was

proceeded with. It is interesting to note that upon the
election of the NDP government this construction was stopped,
and certainly the idea that the previous programme was to be
accomplished over 10 years was never part of the prior
agreement. One can only conclude that the NDP government has in
fact spread out the original proposal over an unacceptable
period of time.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, at the high-level conference the
Social Credit negotiation team agreed to do two specific
things. First, they agreed to transfer to the federal
government the land required for the major port facility at
Prince Rupert. Secondly, it was agreed that the Department of
Municipal Affairs would extend the boundaries of the City of
Prince Rupert to bring the area required for the federal port
development completely within the boundaries of the
municipality. As clearcut evidence that the proposals
negotiated were very firm indeed, Mr. Speaker, the latter two
steps were completed by the Department of Lands and the
Department of Municipal Affairs prior to the government leaving
office. In total, the development represents, Mr. Speaker,
except for the time scheduling, the package as was negotiated
by the previous government, not by this government. We can only
quarrel with the time scheduling.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I listened to a tape a week or so
ago that was taken during a radio talk show in which Mr. Frank
Richter, in discussing northern development with Mr. Barry
Clark of CKWX radio station, gave a full outline of all of
these preceding negotiations. The whole package was outlined on
that radio programme. The timetable that was assumed by the
people involved to be followed was that the northern
development programme agreements would be signed in the fall of
1972.

It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the descending
political fortunes of the Liberal Party in British Columbia are
reason for much of the ballyhoo which surrounded the
announcement of this northern development. But the development,
I must stress, Mr. Speaker, was in fact an accomplished
proposal at the very highest level during 1972. It was no magic
wand that this NDP government had that came up with the final
agreement for this northern development package. Yes, Mr.
Speaker, the credibility of this government has been seriously
impaired.

I just want to mention nuclear power. In the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, it
was announced that there would be a conference set up about nuclear power to
draw in people from various levels of government and from various levels of
technology, along with the MLAs and other people involved, to discuss the pros
and cons of nuclear power. That same evening, on CTV, the Premier of British
Columbia said, and this is a direct quote, "As long as the NDP government is
in power there will be no nuclear power in British Columbia." Now what kind
of a farce are we developing here? What's the point of drawing these people
in from all over the world to talk about nuclear power when the Premier says
that as long as the NDP is in power in British Columbia there will be no nuclear
power in this province?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's only another three years.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right. It's only another three
years.

I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the Health Committee, of
which I was a part, and the problems which I felt were inherent
in the final deliberations of that committee. I want to touch
briefly on what some people have chosen to call the "Calder
affair." It is with some regret that I touch on this matter,
but I feel that I need to comment because this matter really
once again reflects the credibility of this government. When
the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) was appointed as
Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for Indian
Affairs this side of the House applauded that move. But
something went wrong. That Minister was removed from office for
reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained to the
people of British Columbia.

One thing we know for sure is that the reasons given by the
Premier only serve to widen that credibility gap. There are
some interesting articles in the Native Voice of this month in
which the native people — I won't read the whole editorial — but they say, first of all, that they don't agree with the
removal from office of Mr. Calder. They say, however, that the
point is that Mr. Calder was not demoted for the reasons for
which they, the government, are criticizing him. Had they felt
the way they now say they did, it was painfully remiss of them
not to have done their public whipping long before Mr. Calder's
unfortunate experience. It smacks strongly of political
opportunism, to be kind about it, and more like attacking a man
after he has been wounded when it appears to be safe to join
the attack.

The front page editorial in the Native Voice, Mr. Speaker,
says in part at least:

The firing of Frank Calder from the provincial cabinet in late July came as a profound shock to those of us
who have known Frank for many years. For Premier Dave Barrett
to say he had lost confidence in a Minister who had not changed
his style since his appointment less than a year ago is hardly
good enough and certainly not fair to Frank Calder who dared to
live his life as he pleased without hiding behind a facade
which might or might not please the masses.

I would urge all of the Members on the other side of the
House to read all of those articles from the Native Voice. I
don't want to take the time of the

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said, in public, that "every
cabinet Minister is entitled to one mistake, and that includes
me," referring to himself. Well, we'd like to ask the
question: Was this the Minister without Portfolio's second
mistake? If so, what was his first? And if it was his second,
was it more serious than his first? How many other Ministers
have already had their first mistake, and how many of those are
just waiting for their second? And we wonder, too, if the
Premier had his first mistake yet. What was it?

I don't want to speculate on the real reasons for the
removal of this Minister. Suffice to say that reports indicated
that the Premier waited a grand total of 90 minutes between the
time that he asked for the Minister's resignation and the time
that he rushed out to the press to announce that his Minister
was fired — 90 minutes. Given another day or two and given the
Premier's noted excellence at negotiation and his persuasive
abilities, it would seem to me that a more dignified and quiet
departure could have been negotiated for a man who had given so
much of his life to this Province of British Columbia.

Expo '74, Mincome, the ferry strike, the northern rail deal,
the "Calder affair," the sideways-shuffling of senior
civil servants, the actions of the super flaks associated with
this government, all of those things, Mr. Speaker, point to the
fact that the credibility of this government is shot; it
doesn't have any credibility among the people of British
Columbia any longer.

I would like to spend a couple more moments on another
specific problem that I have in the constituency of Langley and
it expands itself to take in all of the Province of British
Columbia as well. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made an
eloquent plea for tax relief for golf courses the other day,
while pointing out some of the hardships which are being caused
by Bill 71, the amendments to the Assessment Equalization Act.

For those who aren't familiar with that Act, section 37 (a)
1, as amended by Bill 71, now states that "the assessed value
of land or improvement used" — stress that word used — "for
residential purposes or classified as farmland shall not be
increased in any year by more than 10 per cent of the assessed
value…in the preceding year unless the increase is
attributable to a change." Well the results of that bill have
been that in urban areas Bill 71 is really having the effect of
transferring the tax load from residential to commercial and
industrial property. It's moving that tax load from the
residential properties over to the commercial and industrial
properties.

I'll admit that there could possibly be some degree of equity between similar
parcels of land in urban areas. But while you might be able to point to an equity
of sorts, at least, between similar parcels in the urban areas, you must also
recognize that assessments on commercial and industrial properties are increasing
by fantastic amounts, double and triple in many areas. The Member for Oak Bay
indicated that his golf course assessments were double, and he's right. But
there is legislation in the Municipal Act that allows for relief for golf courses
and any golf course can take advantage of that Act. But the people who are running
small businesses in this province don't have access to that kind of legislation.
They don't have the right under the Municipal Act to go and get relief when
they are forced out of business because of repressive taxation by this government.

And that's exactly what is happening, Mr. Speaker, because
we are forcing and we will force many small businesses, because
of the changes in Bill 71…. We won't hurt the industrial
giants or the multi-national companies, we won't hurt them.
They'll just pass the raise on to the consumer the way they
always do. But we are threatening the small businesses in urban
areas with extinction, and once again it is because of
repressive taxation policies by this government.

And worse than that there isn't even a semblance of equity,
not even a semblance of equity, outside of the urban areas. In
the rural areas of the mainland, in which my constituency lies,
Bill 71 is causing a very, very extreme hardship to people with
acreages and small holdings and acreages. And those people who
are familiar with the Langley constituency will recognize that
much of Langley is taken up by small holdings and acreages.

I also know that this socialist government, for some reason,
has an obsession against people holding small parcels of land
or hobby farms. I've never been able to understand that
obsession on the part of this government but it is there
nevertheless. But regardless of that obsession, I am wondering
if that is any reason for this government to drive those people
off their land by discriminatory taxation. That is what is
happening outside of the urban areas, in the rural and
semi-rural areas of British Columbia.

Now, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)
said the other day — I don't have the article here but I
believe I'll quote him fairly correctly when he said that "Bill
71 has caused some anomalies." Well, I'd say that was an
understatement, Mr. Speaker. Anomalies it has caused but I
would urge that the Minister act immediately to review the
assessment commissioner's interpretation of Bill 71. I'll
repeat that for the Minister. We'd like him to act immediately
to urge the assessment commissioner to review the
interpretation of Bill 71 and establish some less
discriminatory method of trying to achieve equity in
assessments of similar properties. Mr. Speaker, that needs to
be done right away because there are many people in my
constituency who are going to find themselves forced off the
land and forced into apartments because they are closed in at
both ends now. They are frozen in respect to the

Land Commission agricultural reserves — and I think on that
subject that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should make an
urgent public statement and tell the people of British Columbia
who are under the impression that, once their land is frozen in
an agricultural reserve, they will automatically receive farm
classification for selling purposes. I would like the Minister
to publicly tell those people that they cannot expect that kind
of tax relief even though their farms have been frozen, perhaps
in perpetuity, by the agricultural land reserves established by
the various regional districts and the Land Commission.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 71 needs to be improved. The
interpretation of it needs to be looked at immediately. I would
like to ask the Education Minister again to give some serious
thought to the problems that we have in School District 35,
with the rapid growth that we are faced with and the serious
overcrowding of schools in my constituency. Thank you.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): First of all, I
would like to congratulate the new Member for Okanagan South
(Mr. Bennett) and wish him the same success that I had after I
was elected in a by-election. (Laughter.)

One of the things that has surprised me about the debate in
this House is that we have heard from 50 per cent of the
Conservatives, 20 per cent of the Liberals….

AN HON. MEMBER: 40 per cent.

HON. MR. LEVI: Forty? I beg your pardon, 40 per cent of the
Liberals — that's two people — and 30 per cent of the Socreds.
I don't see everybody rushing to get involved in the debate
when there are so many pertinent issues that really need to be
discussed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, we've been there. We've been there.

I'd like to just relate, Mr. Speaker, what has been
happening in the federal-provincial relations that have been
going on in the past several months, and point out to the Hon.
Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) that it really
isn't such a bad thing if we don't consult in such depth as he
suggests we should do with the federal Minister.

He keeps telling us that 96 cents of every dollar is federal
money. I suggest to you, sir, it is not federal money. It is
taxpayers' money, and we have a hard enough time trying to get
some sharing in it.

One of the difficulties we have been having for the past
year is dealing with an up-and-down, inflexible approach of the
federal government in respect to sharing. One week they are
interpreting the Act, the Canada Assistance Plan Act, in the most rigid fashion, and
the next week it is flexible.

You know, we have been discussing Mincome sharing with the
federal government for 11 months. We discussed other kinds of
sharing in relation to day-care for about seven months. The
paper is piling up. It is enormous.

When we were at the Quebec conference, which was a
conference of provincial Ministers — and we were there to see
if we could get together a particular stance in respect to our
visit to Ottawa next month — what came out of the discussion was
a very serious concern about inflation. Four of the provinces
present there, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, B.C. and Quebec, were
prepared to put out a statement which dealt with the very
serious problem of excessive profits. We made a statement with
respect to the fact that there should be an excess-profit tax.
We made suggestions about how they might deal with some of
these problems of inflation.

Our concern was such because, as Ministers of Welfare, we
deal with people who are on fixed incomes. We were not able,
unfortunately, to get the kind of unanimity at this meeting
that we got last year. Nevertheless, there is a universal
concern in Canada about the problem of inflation. But the
question of coming together on a statement — it was not
possible.

We are going down there next month to meet with the federal
people, and we want to discuss with them some of the problems
of the Canada Assistance Plan and the rigid application of the
law.

What we have been attempting to do in British Columbia is to
rationalize income security, to do it in such a way that it is
not extravagant…but to make income available to people …
purchasing power — nobody is putting it into the bank — so that
they can live a dignified life.

We heard across the way from the previous speaker about
extravagance — extravagance on the building, extravagance on
offices. Let me tell you about something in the previous
government where there was a lack of extravagance, and that was
in dealing with people; in dealing with senior citizens; in
dealing with children — depriving children and senior citizens
of a reasonable income, based on the idea that we must have
balanced budgets. Part of that balancing of budgets, of course,
led to the deterioration of this building. That's a kind of
extravagance. That's an extravagance of ignorance and an
unfeeling attitude towards people.

MR. PHILLIPS: How much more are you giving them now?

HON. MR. LEVI: We are hoping that as we broaden our
programmes in respect to guaranteed incomes, we will be able to
take into account those

people who were not able to make the kind of necessary
planning for income security in their old age because of the
situation of the Depression or the war or their inability to
take regular work because of a lack of skills.

Happily, we are reaching the stage where we, perhaps, have
to take care of one more age bracket, and then everybody else
is taken care of in terms of their pension contributions on a
private basis, on the Canada Pension basis and the assuredness
of income security from the federal government on a
pension.

That is what we have been trying to do. We have been trying
to elevate the standard of living for a large number of people
in the province, and this we have succeeded in doing.

We have not made rash commitments about the kinds of money
people can receive. We find it inconceivable that we could
give, at this time, senior citizens $250 a month, as was
suggested by the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) in
the by-election. Presumably, if there is some other
by-election, they will jump it up to $275. When you are
approaching the business of giving people money, you do it in a
very rational way. That is what we have attempted to do in
working out our income to give to people.

I want to talk for a moment about the employment programme
that the department was responsible for this summer. As you may
know, we were given $1 million under this programme so that we
could particularly put to work the welfare recipients who had
been on welfare for some time and had not had access to the
labour market. I want to say at this time that we have now done
a review of this programme, and I want to inform you of some of
the figures that have come up.

In the three months that the programme has been operating we
have hired 556 people. This means that we have placed those
people in various government departments and non-profit
operations throughout the province. The total cost to now is
$873,000. There has been a saving of $327,000 on the welfare
that would have been paid to these people had they not been
working.

We are now attempting to run a check on the possible savings
in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, because
some people had recently come off unemployment insurance and
had gone on welfare, and we were looking at that particular
problem as well.

Of the 556 people that we hired, 54 per cent were women and 45 per cent were
men. I've no comments to make about the other gender. What we found was that
people, once given the opportunity to work — whether it be in clerical work or
in labouring or in assisting in such agencies as those that deal with autistic
children or retarded children, or doing work in the Human Resources office on
interview work so that we could free up social workers for the family intervention
that we have been doing — that once these people have been given an opportunity
to get back into the work force, there was a very noticeable change in their
general attitude towards their lifestyle.

I am happy to say that some of the people have been hired on
a full-time basis by some of the agencies outside of the
government. We also participated with four municipalities in
assisting them in their waterworks programmes by providing
people for them. We were able to give such help to Nakusp, to
Kaslo and to Naramata. All of these people have been actively
involved in doing the kind of work that had been planned for
some time but which they weren't able to do because they
couldn't meet the labour costs.

We have also noted in the figures that more than 50 per cent
of the people involved in the total scheme were people who were
either separated or divorced. And the majority of these people,
of course, are women who are the breadwinners of their
families.

So we have been able to achieve a number of things in
respect to the welfare recipients within this programme. It has
given them an entry into the work force, and it is fully our
intention to follow it up to see that they go on into permanent
employment.

I also want to say that during the summer, in respect to the
transient young people who are travelling around Canada, we set
up a referral office in the Vancouver area and we were able to
place in permanent employment over 200 people and nearly
another 200 in temporary employment. This is a great change
from the kind of style that existed with young transients three
or four years ago. We found generally that that programme which
we encouraged and planned for as early as last November has
worked out very well. I'll announce the figures at a later
date, but I understand that we have been able to cut the cost
in half from the last year's programme.

I want now to talk about the kinds of things we have been
doing in respect to day care. As you know, last December we
announced that we would go into a capital funding programme for
day-care centres and in April we announced the subsidy
programme on a sliding scale which was primarily based on an
incomes test. I want to say that since December, 1972, the
government has placed into operation 80 new day-care centres.
That has created places for at least 1,600 children. In the
greater Vancouver area the number of places for children in day
care, in out-of-school and in-home day care has gone from just
over 2,000 places to almost 5,000 places.

What we have attempted to do is to provide for a need which
has been well demonstrated and which was very well ignored by
the previous government. It is the beginning of the first
aspects of prevention in the work that is done in the
department.

Now we are finding, certainly in the Vancouver area, that we
have to have a concern about space and buildings. We have to
find places to put the children. We're having discussions with
the Vancouver School Board about using some of the classrooms
that are empty. Nevertheless, the problem of space in respect
to day care is going to be a serious one and we are undertaking
some studies in respect to modular units and the use of
trailers. The one thing that I personally feel about the
day-care situation in respect to young children is that we do
not want to be using basements of churches and other buildings
which tend to make our children invisible. We certainly need to
get into some kind of reasonable unit in which children can
play and interact with one another.

We have had some discussion over the past months about
24-hour day care. I took the opportunity when I was in the east
to visit a 24-hour day-care centre which was operating in New
York. I have also had a report from some people who visited a
24-hour day-care centre in Atlanta, Georgia. With respect to
the one in New York, there were 260 children operating in the
programme in the daytime but only 35 children in the night
programme. It seems to me that before we will give any real
consideration to 24-hour day-care centres we will give very
real consideration to placing homemakers and that kind of
individual in the home where somebody needs to have overnight
care. I don't see at this time that we have the demand or the
thrust for that kind of operation here. We will continue to
look at it and to gather together as much information as we can
on the 24-hour day-care centre.

We are attempting to develop the under-three day care, which
is the very crucial one. It is a crucial service for many women
who are separated or divorced who are attempting to operate on
their own, not on welfare, but in the work force. I think we
have now reached a level of understanding about regulations and
conditions that these things need to operate in, and also the
kinds of things that we can expect from such a programme. We
will have more to say about the under-three day-care centre as
the session goes on.

I want now before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, to talk about two
other things. One relates to the kind of service we are
attempting to deliver in the province, particularly in respect
to children, and then I want to say something about senior
citizens.

We have heard some discussion in the House this week about how some of the
opposition Members miss the Willingdon Girls' School. Well, I can assure you
that the department does not miss the Willingdon Girls' School and neither do
the girls. We have attempted over the past 12 months, with some success, to
make a number of alternative arrangements dealing with children, who ordinarily
would have gone to the Willingdon school under the previous government, where
they are being dealt with in their own communities. Perhaps much to the dislike
of some members of some communities, they are going to have to deal with their
problem children right in their own community. We will not, unless there are
some very special circumstances, allow children to be removed from their communities.

The staff of the department and the staff of some agencies
have responded in a very worthwhile way to developing alternate
kinds of services for children. We have put a great amount of
money into some foster homes and some other kinds of smaller
agencies rather than put the money into the kind of operation
that Willingdon represented, where we were spending $30 a day
with no programme and the results were unfortunately not very
happy ones. So what we have done is to say that we must deal
first of all with the child in its home and in its
community.

As I said earlier, the response from the staff has really
been terrific. We have expanded the operating hours of the
department. The only requirement we have is that the people
open the office at 8:30, but how they work their working hours
out is entirely up to what they need in terms of the caseloads
that they are dealing with. Because of the employment programme
of this summer, for the first time we have really been able to
get into family intervention work and really help out in a way
that we wanted to. And this is where we want to go. This is
where we want to go in terms of this because it is
important.

I submitted a report on this operation which we ran over the
past three months, and I am happy to say that we now have
approval to operate that programme until March 31, 1974.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say something about senior
citizens. I don't want to recount the number of programmes that
we have introduced and the kind of money we are spending, but I
want people to think about another problem in respect to senior
citizens which perhaps is all too often forgotten.

Last year when we introduced the Mincome and were told that
we would have to means test everybody, we did send out the blue
form and we found at the end of it all that about 20,000 people
had to be visited to have the test completed. We put on teams
of people, some of them under the summer employment programme,
to do this.

I want to read to you a report that was sent to me about a
series of interviews that were conducted on the north Island.
This was in the Campbell River area:

The Campbell River office has completed the Mincome interviews, and
I feel it may be helpful to share with you some of the reactions we got
from people who were interviewed and what we learned about the results
of our visits.

Although we failed to keep exact records, we estimate that approximately 7 per cent of those interviewed refused to share any

information. It was noted that most of the group were either
of foreign extraction or had an axe to grind against the
present government. Approximately 9 per cent were not
interviewed as they were unable to locate them after some
effort.

Although the majority of people we visited seemed to be
managing fairly well, in four or five cases we had to apply
special services to aid people who were either unable to cook
properly for themselves or had considerable difficulty in
moving about. In these instances homemakers were used. We feel
some concern, however, about what might have happened to these
people had we not visited them in their home.

We feel that there are other people who need similar
services who have not identified themselves and have not been
noticed by the community.

Now, I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Members,
and hopefully through the press to the province, to all of the
people in this province who live in whatever community, that in
your community, maybe in the same building if you live in an
apartment block, or in a house on the same block, are senior
citizens who are lonely, who never see anyone from weekend to
weekend, who in some cases are unable to move around too well,
who are desperately lonely and are dying because of this
loneliness. I want to ask that people become aware of this and
do something about it.

If you know that there is a senior citizen near you, go and
talk to them. Ask them how they are and whether they need
anything. We have offices all over the province and we're quite
prepared to make our services available to whoever comes to us
in respect to some problem. I ask the people of this province
to take notice of their neighbours, and if they're senior
citizens, make sure that they know that you care about what's
happening to them. It's extremely important and I ask that this
is what you do.

Next month, on October 3 and 4, we are bringing down about 120 senior citizen
counsellors. You'll recall that in the last session I circulated to all the MLAs
and asked for your recommendations for people to be appointed to add to the
number who already were serving. We have now notified you that these appointments
have been made and there will be a conference on the 3rd and 4th. We have prepared
seminar situations so that the counsellors can understand what it is that we
would like them to do with respect to other senior citizens in their communities.
These people have done an extremely good job. What we want to do is to try to
arrange that we can bring them up to date on all of the things that are happening
in terms of the programmes, because they are a very essential link with the
other senior citizens in the province.

Mr. Speaker, in closing let me say that we will continue to
develop the kind of programmes that have meaning for people.
After all, we said we are a people's government. I hope that as
this debate goes on we don't get too upset about the little
extravagances, as people say, but that we concern ourselves
with the kind of extravagance that we are dealing with, and
that is spending money and providing service for people who
need it in this province. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Mr. G.H. Anderson from the Select Standing Committee on
Agriculture presented the committee's final report, which was
taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to
file with the House an agreement in principle on the Joint
Transportation Development Programme in northern British
Columbia, signed by myself and the Hon. Jean Marchand. This is
the document asked for earlier in the House and I'm pleased to
share it with the House because it was a great benefit to
British Columbia when it was arranged between this government
and Ottawa.